Submitted:
16 September 2024
Posted:
16 September 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
1.1. Limitations of Traditional Cognitive Assessment Tools
1.2. Executive Functions and the Role of Gaming Skills
1.3. Importance of Ecological Validity in Neuropsychological Assessments
1.4. Cybersickness
1.5. The Trail Making Test in Virtual Reality
1.5.1. Interaction Modes
1.5.2. Acceptability, Usability, and User Experience
1.6. Objectives and Hypotheses of the Current Study
- H1: Eye-tracking and/or head movement as interaction techniques will positively affect performance (accuracy and task completion time) on the TMT-VR part A and part B tasks.
- H2: A higher level of gaming skill will positively affect performance (accuracy and completion time) on the TMT-VR part A and B tasks.
- H3: The interaction between high gaming skill and eye-tracking and/or head movement as interaction techniques will result in the best performance on the TMT-VR part A and part B tasks.
- H4: The TMT-VR will demonstrate high usability, acceptability, and user experience, as defined by the developers of the respective questionnaires (e.g., SUTAQ, UEQ, and SUS).
- H5: Positive associations with prior technology experiences and/or gaming skills will have significant positive effects on perceived usability, acceptability, and user experience of the TMT-VR.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. VR Setup
2.3. Development of the TMT-VR
2.4. Materials
2.4.1. Demographic Questionnaire
2.4.2. Gaming Skill Questionnaire (GSQ)
2.4.3. Cybersickness in VR Questionnaire (CSQ-VR)
2.4.4. The Trail Making Test in Virtual Reality (TMT-VR)
- TMT-VR Task A: Participants connected 25 numbered cubes in ascending numerical order (1, 2, 3,...25). This task measured visual scanning, attention, and processing speed, mirroring the traditional TMT-A but within a more complex and immersive environment [38].
- TMT-VR Task B: Participants connected 25 cubes that alternated between numbers and letters in ascending order (1, A, 2, B, 3, C,...13). This task assessed more complex cognitive functions, including task-switching ability and cognitive flexibility, reflecting the traditional TMT-B but within the enhanced VR setting [38].
2.4.5. Acceptability Questionnaire (AQ)
2.4.6. User Experience Questionnaire – Short Version (UEQ-S)
2.4.7. System Usability Scale (SUS)
2.5. Procedure
2.6. Statistical Analyses
2.6.1. Correlation Analyses
2.6.2. Repeated Measures ANOVA
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Acceptability, Usability, User Experience
3.3. Correlation Analyses
3.4. Mixed Measures ANOVA Analyses
3.4.1. Task Time
3.4.2. Task Accuracy
4. Discussion
4.1. Usability and User Experience
4.2. Enhancing Performance
4.2.1. Task Completion Time
4.2.2. Task Accuracy
4.3. Gaming Skills
4.4. Interaction Modes
4.5. Limitations and Future Directions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wilson, C.J.; Soranzo, A. The Use of Virtual Reality in Psychology: A Case Study in Visual Perception. Comput Math Methods Med 2015, 2015, 151702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kourtesis, P.; MacPherson, S.E. How Immersive Virtual Reality Methods May Meet the Criteria of the National Academy of Neuropsychology and American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology: A Software Review of the Virtual Reality Everyday Assessment Lab (VR-EAL). Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 2021, 4, 100151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stecker, G.C. Using Simple Virtual Environments to Study the Differentiation and Integration of Sensory Cues in Complex Scenes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2023, 154, A115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thurley, K. Naturalistic Neuroscience and Virtual Reality. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2022, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aminov, A.; Rogers, J.M.; Middleton, S.; Caeyenberghs, K.; Wilson, P.H. What Do Randomized Controlled Trials Say about Virtual Rehabilitation in Stroke? A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Upper-Limb and Cognitive Outcomes. J. Neuroengineering Rehabil. 2018, 15, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laver, K.E.; Lange, B.; George, S.; Deutsch, J.E.; Saposnik, G.; Crotty, M. Virtual Reality for Stroke Rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017, 11, CD008349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgiev, D.D.; Georgieva, I.; Gong, Z.; Nanjappan, V.; Georgiev, G.V. Virtual Reality for Neurorehabilitation and Cognitive Enhancement. Brain Sci. 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourtesis, P.; Linnell, J.; Amir, R.; Argelaguet, F.; MacPherson, S.E. Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Questionnaire (CSQ-VR): A Validation and Comparison against SSQ and VRSQ. Virtual Worlds 2023, 2, 16–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashiri, A.; Ghazisaeedi, M.; Shahmoradi, L. The Opportunities of Virtual Reality in the Rehabilitation of Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Literature Review. Korean J. Pediatr. 2017, 60, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourtesis, P.; Kouklari, E.-C.; Roussos, P.; Mantas, V.; Papanikolaou, K.; Skaloumbakas, C.; Pehlivanidis, A. Virtual Reality Training of Social Skills in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: An Examination of Acceptability, Usability, User Experience, Social Skills, and Executive Functions. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourtesis, P.; Vizcay, S.; Marchal, M.; Pacchierotti, C.; Argelaguet, F. Action-Specific Perception & Performance on a Fitts’s Law Task in Virtual Reality: The Role of Haptic Feedback. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2022, 28, 3715–3726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nwosu, A.C.; Mills, M.; Roughneen, S.; Stanley, S.; Chapman, L.; Mason, S.R. Virtual Reality in Specialist Palliative Care: A Feasibility Study to Enable Clinical Practice Adoption. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2024, 14, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rizzo, A.S.; Koenig, S.T. Is Clinical Virtual Reality Ready for Primetime? Neuropsychology 2017, 31, 877–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pallavicini, F.; Pepe, A.; Minissi, M.E. Taking Neuropsychological Test to the Next Level: Commercial Virtual Reality Video Games for the Assessment of Executive Functions. In Proceedings of the Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Multimodality and Assistive Environments; Antona, M., Stephanidis, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2019; pp. 133–149.
- Goldberg, T.E.; Harvey, P.D.; Wesnes, K.A.; Snyder, P.J.; Schneider, L.S. Practice Effects Due to Serial Cognitive Assessment: Implications for Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease Randomized Controlled Trials. Alzheimers Dement. Amst. Neth. 2015, 1, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohil, C.J.; Alicea, B.; Biocca, F.A. Virtual Reality in Neuroscience Research and Therapy. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2011, 12, 752–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.-H. Can the Virtual Reality-Based Spatial Memory Test Better Discriminate Mild Cognitive Impairment than Neuropsychological Assessment? Int J Env. Res Public Health 2022, 19, 9950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parsons, T.D.; Courtney, C.G.; Arizmendi, B.; Dawson, M. Virtual Reality Stroop Task for Neurocognitive Assessment. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2011, 163, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiebe, A.; Kannen, K.; Li, M.; Aslan, B.; Anders, D.; Selaskowski, B.; Ettinger, U.; Lux, S.; Philipsen, A.; Braun, N. Multimodal Virtual Reality-Based Assessment of Adult ADHD: A Feasibility Study in Healthy Subjects. Assessment 2023, 30, 1435–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malegiannaki, A.-C.; Garefalaki, E.; Nestoraki, D.; Malegiannakis, A.; Kosmidis, M.H. Can the Trail Making Test Be Substituted by a 3D Computerized Visit to a Supermarket? Clinical Implications. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. Ment. Health 2021, 4, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P.; Emerson, M.J.; Witzki, A.H.; Howerter, A.; Wager, T.D. The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis. Cognit. Psychol. 2000, 41, 49–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podlogar, N.; Podlesek, A. Comparison of Mental Rotation Ability, Attentional Capacity and Cognitive Flexibility in Action Video Gamers and Non-Gamers. Cyberpsychology J. Psychosoc. Res. Cyberspace 2022, 16, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blacker, K.J.; Curby, K.M. Enhanced Visual Short-Term Memory in Action Video Game Players. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2013, 75, 1128–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reynaldo, C.; Christian, R.; Hosea, H.; Gunawan, A.A.S. Using Video Games to Improve Capabilities in Decision Making and Cognitive Skill: A Literature Review. 5th Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Comput. Intell. 2020 2021, 179, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowal, M.; Toth, A.J.; Exton, C.; Campbell, M.J. Different Cognitive Abilities Displayed by Action Video Gamers and Non-Gamers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 88, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiwal, S.; Jain, P.; Jain, A.K. Impact of Playing Action and Puzzle Video-games on Attention and Executive Function. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Lobato-Camacho, F.J.; López, J.C.; Vargas, J.P. Virtual Reality Evaluation of the Spatial Learning Strategies in Gamers. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2024, 83, 38127–38144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stadler, S.; Cornet, H.; Frenkler, F. A Study in Virtual Reality on (Non-)Gamers’ Attitudes and Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR); March 2019; pp. 1169–1170.
- Parsons, T.D.; Phillips, A.S. Virtual Reality for Psychological Assessment in Clinical Practice. Pract. Innov. 2016, 1, 197–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parsons, T.D. Virtual Reality for Enhanced Ecological Validity and Experimental Control in the Clinical, Affective and Social Neurosciences. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourtesis, P.; Collina, S.; Doumas, L.A.A.; MacPherson, S.E. Technological Competence Is a Pre-Condition for Effective Implementation of Virtual Reality Head Mounted Displays in Human Neuroscience: A Technological Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, E.; Han, J.; Choi, H.; Prié, Y.; Vigier, T.; Bulteau, S.; Kwon, G.H. Examining the Academic Trends in Neuropsychological Tests for Executive Functions Using Virtual Reality: Systematic Literature Review. JMIR Serious Games 2021, 9, e30249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munafo, J.; Diedrick, M.; Stoffregen, T.A. The Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Display Oculus Rift Induces Motion Sickness and Is Sexist in Its Effects. Exp. Brain Res. 2017, 235, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourtesis, P.; Korre, D.; Collina, S.; Doumas, L.A.A.; MacPherson, S.E. Guidelines for the Development of Immersive Virtual Reality Software for Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology: The Development of Virtual Reality Everyday Assessment Lab (VR-EAL), a Neuropsychological Test Battery in Immersive Virtual Reality. Front Comput Sci 2020, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourtesis, P.; Amir, R.; Linnell, J.; Argelaguet, F.; MacPherson, S.E. Cybersickness, Cognition, & Motor Skills: The Effects of Music, Gender, and Gaming Experience. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2023, 29, 2326–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourtesis, P.; Papadopoulou, A.; Roussos, P. Cybersickness in Virtual Reality: The Role of Individual Differences, Its Effects on Cognitive Functions and Motor Skills, and Intensity Differences during and after Immersion. Virtual Worlds 2024, 3, 62–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, L.D.; Guhn, A.; Zeller, J.B.M.; Biehl, S.C.; Dresler, T.; Hahn, T.; Fallgatter, A.J.; Polak, T.; Deckert, J.; Herrmann, M.J. Neural Correlates of a Standardized Version of the Trail Making Test in Young and Elderly Adults: A Functional near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study. Neuropsychologia 2014, 56, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowie, C.R.; Harvey, P.D. Administration and Interpretation of the Trail Making Test. Nat Protoc 2006, 1, 2277–2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faria, C.d.A.; Alves, H.V.D.; Charchat-Fichman, H. The Most Frequently Used Tests for Assessing Executive Functions in Aging. Dement Neuropsychol 2015, 9, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourtesis, P.; Collina, S.; Doumas, L.A.A.; MacPherson, S.E. Validation of the Virtual Reality Everyday Assessment Lab (VR-EAL): An Immersive Virtual Reality Neuropsychological Battery with Enhanced Ecological Validity. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2021, 27, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kourtesis, P.; Collina, S.; Doumas, L.A.A.; MacPherson, S.E. Validation of the Virtual Reality Neuroscience Questionnaire: Maximum Duration of Immersive Virtual Reality Sessions Without the Presence of Pertinent Adverse Symptomatology. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.M.; Rhiu, I.; Yun, M.H. A Systematic Review of a Virtual Reality System from the Perspective of User Experience. Int. J. Human–Computer Interact. 2020, 36, 893–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gauselmann, P.; Frings, C.; Tempel, T. Cognitive Offloading Benefits Eye Gaze Interaction. Appl Cogn Psychol 2023, 37, 1119–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mutasim, A.K.; Batmaz, A.U.; Stuerzlinger, W. Pinch, Click, or Dwell: Comparing Different Selection Techniques for Eye-Gaze-Based Pointing in Virtual Reality.; ACM: New York, NY, USA, May 25 2021.
- Adhanom, I.B.; MacNeilage, P.; Folmer, E. Eye Tracking in Virtual Reality: A Broad Review of Applications and Challenges. Virtual Real. 2023, 27, 1481–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jensen, L.; Konradsen, F. A Review of the Use of Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays in Education and Training. Educ Inf Technol 2018, 23, 1515–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, C.-L.; Tian, C.-Y.; Kuai, S.-G. A Combination of Eye-Gaze and Head-Gaze Interactions Improves Efficiency and User Experience in an Object Positioning Task in Virtual Environments. Appl. Ergon. 2022, 103, 103785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hou, W.; Chen, X. Comparison of Eye-Based and Controller-Based Selection in Virtual Reality. Int. J. Human–Computer Interact. 2021, 37, 484–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, C.-L.; Sun, L.; Zhou, C.; Kuai, S.-G. Dual-Gain Mode of Head-Gaze Interaction Improves the Efficiency of Object Positioning in a 3D Virtual Environment. Int. J. Human–Computer Interact. 2024, 40, 2067–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, J.P.; Rajanna, V.; MacKenzie, I.S.; Bækgaard, P. A Fitts’ Law Study of Click and Dwell Interaction by Gaze, Head and Mouse with a Head-Mounted Display. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Workshop on Communication by Gaze Interaction; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, June 15 2018; pp. 1–5.
- Luro, F.; Sundstedt, V. A Comparative Study of Eye Tracking and Hand Controller for Aiming Tasks in Virtual Reality; 2019; p. 9; ISBN 978-1-4503-6709-7.
- Špakov, O.; Istance, H.; Räihä, K.-J.; Viitanen, T.; Siirtola, H. Eye Gaze and Head Gaze in Collaborative Games. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, June 25 2019; pp. 1–9.
- Lewis, J.R.; Sauro, J. Usability and User Experience: Design and Evaluation. 2021, 972–1015. [CrossRef]
- Cheah, W.-H.; Mat Jusoh, N.; Aung, M.M.T.; Ab Ghani, A.; Mohd Amin Rebuan, H. Mobile Technology in Medicine: Development and Validation of an Adapted System Usability Scale (SUS) Questionnaire and Modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to Evaluate User Experience and Acceptability of a Mobile Application in MRI Safety Screening. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2023, 33, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botella, C.; Serrano, B.; Baños, R.M.; Garcia-Palacios, A. Virtual Reality Exposure-Based Therapy for the Treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Review of Its Efficacy, the Adequacy of the Treatment Protocol, and Its Acceptability. Neuropsychiatr Treat 2015, 11, 2533–2545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tennant, M.; McGillivray, J.; Youssef, G.J.; McCarthy, M.C.; Clark, T.-J. Feasibility, Acceptability, and Clinical Implementation of an Immersive Virtual Reality Intervention to Address Psychological Well-Being in Children and Adolescents With Cancer. J. Pediatr. Oncol. Nurs. 2020, 37, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phelan, I.; Furness, P.J.; Fehily, O.; Thompson, A.R.; Babiker, N.T.; Lamb, M.A.; Lindley, S.A. A Mixed-Methods Investigation Into the Acceptability, Usability, and Perceived Effectiveness of Active and Passive Virtual Reality Scenarios in Managing Pain Under Experimental Conditions. J. Burn Care Res. 2019, 40, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 9241-210:2010. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/52075.html (accessed on 3 September 2024).
- de Clerk, M.; Dangelmaier, M.; Schmierer, G.; Spath, D. User Centered Design of Interaction Techniques for VR-Based Automotive Design Reviews. Front Robot AI 2019, 6, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Argelaguet, F.; Andujar, C. A Survey of 3D Object Selection Techniques for Virtual Environments. Comput Graph 2013, 37, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohan, P.; Goh, W.B.; Fu, C.-W.; Yeung, S.-K. DualGaze: Addressing the Midas Touch Problem in Gaze Mediated VR Interaction.; IEEE, October 2018.
- Luong; Cheng; Möbus; Fender; Holz C. Controllers or Bare Hands? A Controlled Evaluation of Input Techniques on Interaction Performance and Exertion in Virtual Reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2023, 29, 4633–4643. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ichihara, Y.G.; Okabe, M.; Iga, K.; Tanaka, Y.; Musha, K.; Ito, K. Color Universal Design: The Selection of Four Easily Distinguishable Colors for All Color Vision Types.; Eschbach, R., Marcu, G.G., Tominaga, S., Eds.; SPIE, January 27 2008.
- Zioga, T.; Ferentinos, A.; Konsolaki, E.; Nega, C.; Kourtesis, P. The Effects of Videogame Skills across Diverse Genres on Verbal and Visuospatial Short-Term and Working Memory, Hand-Eye Coordination, and Empathy in Early Adulthood. Preprints 2024.
- Zioga, T.; Nega, C.; Roussos, P.; Kourtesis, P. Validation of the Gaming Skills Questionnaire in Adolescence: Effects of Gaming Skills on Cognitive and Affective Functioning. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2024, 14, 722–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirani, S.P.; Rixon, L.; Beynon, M.; Cartwright, M.; Cleanthous, S.; Selva, A.; Sanders, C.; Newman, S.P. Quantifying Beliefs Regarding Telehealth: Development of the Whole Systems Demonstrator Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire. J. Telemed. Telecare 2017, 23, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schrepp, M.; Thomaschewski, J.; Hinderks, A. Design and Evaluation of a Short Version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S). Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2017, 4, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brooke, J. SUS: A Retrospective. J. Usability Stud. 2013, 8, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022.
- RStudio Team RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R; RStudio, PBC: Boston, MA, 2022.
- Peterson, R.A. bestNormalize: Normalizing Transformation Functions 2017, 1.9.1.
- Wickham, H. Ggplot2; Use R!; 2nd ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; ISBN 978-3-319-24275-0.
- Wei, T.; Simko, V. Corrplot: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix 2024, 0.94.
- Singmann, H.; Bolker, B.; Westfall, J.; Aust, F.; Ben-Shachar, M.S. Afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments; 2021.
- Eichenberg, C.; Wolters, C. Virtual Realities in the Treatment of Mental Disorders: A Review of the Current State of Research. 2012, 35–64. [CrossRef]
- Riva, G.; Wiederhold, B.K.; Mantovani, F. Neuroscience of Virtual Reality: From Virtual Exposure to Embodied Medicine. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2019, 22, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, S.; Nesbitt, K.; Nalivaiko, E. A Systematic Review of Cybersickness. In Proceedings of the IE2014; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–9.
- LaViola, J.J. A Discussion of Cybersickness in Virtual Environments. SIGCHI Bull 2000, 32, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clay, V.; König, P.; König, S. Eye Tracking in Virtual Reality. J Eye Mov Res 2019, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blattgerste, J.; Renner, P.; Pfeiffer, T. Advantages of Eye-Gaze over Head-Gaze-Based Selection in Virtual and Augmented Reality under Varying Field of Views. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Workshop on Communication by Gaze Interaction; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, June 15 2018; pp. 1–9.
- Pallavicini, F.; Ferrari, A.; Zini, A.; Garcea, G.; Zanacchi, A.; Barone, G.; Mantovani, F. What Distinguishes a Traditional Gaming Experience from One in Virtual Reality? An Exploratory Study. In Proceedings of the Advances in Human Factors in Wearable Technologies and Game Design; Ahram, T., Falcão, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2018; pp. 225–231.
- Bediou, B.; Adams, D.M.; Mayer, R.E.; Tipton, E.; Green, C.S.; Bavelier, D. Meta-Analysis of Action Video Game Impact on Perceptual, Attentional, and Cognitive Skills. Psychol Bull 2018, 144, 77–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]






| Variable | Mean (SD) | Range |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 23.48 (3.41) | 18-35 |
| Education | 15.69 (3.43) | 12-23 |
| PC | 9.97 (1.30) | 6-12 |
| SMART | 9.94 (1.59) | 4-12 |
| VR | 2.70 (1.30) | 2-8 |
| SPORT | 4.13 (2.23) | 2-12 |
| FPS | 4.73 (2.79) | 2-12 |
| RPG | 4.46 (3.04) | 2-12 |
| Action | 4.59 (2.82) | 2-12 |
| Strategy | 3.82 (2.75) | 2-12 |
| Puzzle | 4.06 (2.62) | 2-12 |
| GSQ | 25.79 (12.73) | 12-61 |
| UX | 46.76 (5.98) | 33-56 |
| Usability | 39.48 (4.79) | 30-49 |
| Acceptability | 49.34 (7.02) | 19-60 |
| Task Time A | Task Time B | Accuracy A | Accuracy B | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | -0.102*** | -0.038*** | -0.071*** | -0.221*** |
| Education | 0.002** | -0.038*** | -0.097*** | -0.038*** |
| GSQ | 0.054 | -0.017*** | 0.040* | 0.004** |
| UX | -0.050*** | 0.085 | -0.023*** | 0.005** |
| Usability | 0.012* | 0.118 | 0.112 | 0.102 |
| Acceptability | 0.036* | 0.040* | 0.008** | -0.093*** |
| UX | Usability | Acceptability | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.031* | -0.148*** | -0.026*** |
| Education | 0.081 | -0.003*** | -0.012*** |
| GSQ | 0.193 | 0.226 | -0.014*** |
| PC | 0.230 | 0.253 | 0.040* |
| SMART | 0.187 | 0.292 | 0.135 |
| Task | Metric | Gaming Level | Interaction Mode | Mean (SD) | Range (Min-Max) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Accuracy | High | Eye | 15.6 (0.249) | 15.2-16.2 |
| Hand | 15.7 (0.180) | 15.3-16.0 | |||
| Head | 15.6 (0.190) | 15.2-16.0 | |||
| Low | Eye | 15.5 (0.233) | 15.0-15.9 | ||
| Hand | 15.8 (0.256) | 15.3-16.3 | |||
| Head | 15.6 (0.215) | 15.1-15.9 | |||
| Accuracy | Overall | Eye | 15.5 (0.255) | 15.0-16.2 | |
| Hand | 15.7 (0.222) | 15.3-16.3 | |||
| Head | 15.6 (0.202) | 15.1-16.0 | |||
| Accuracy | High | Overall | 15.6 (0.214) | 15.2-16.2 | |
| Low | Overall | 15.6 (0.265) | 15.0-16.3 | ||
| B | Accuracy | High | Eye | 15.6 (0.270) | 14.9-16.2 |
| Hand | 15.6 (0.238) | 15.2-16.2 | |||
| Head | 15.6 (0.226) | 15.1-16.2 | |||
| Low | Eye | 15.5 (0.189) | 15.2-15.9 | ||
| Hand | 15.7 (0.232) | 15.3-16.1 | |||
| Head | 15.5 (0.254) | 15.1-16.1 | |||
| Accuracy | Overall | Eye | 15.5 (0.232) | 14.9-16.2 | |
| Hand | 15.7 (0.235) | 15.2-16.2 | |||
| Head | 15.6 (0.241) | 15.1-16.2 | |||
| Accuracy | High | Overall | 15.6 (0.244) | 14.9-16.2 | |
| Low | Overall | 15.6 (0.236) | 15.1-16.1 | ||
| A | Task Time | High | Eye | 73.9 (11.487) | 51.8-103.1 |
| Hand | 80.8 (15.681) | 55.6-116.5 | |||
| Head | 67.2 (15.946) | 42.3-118.2 | |||
| Low | Eye | 74.8 (17.421) | 42.3-113.8 | ||
| Hand | 82.3 (16.926) | 53.8-120.0 | |||
| Head | 72.2 (16.232) | 45.8-119.5 | |||
| Task Time | Overall | Eye | 74.4 (14.782) | 42.3-113.8 | |
| Hand | 81.6 (16.242) | 53.8-120.0 | |||
| Head | 69.8 (16.172) | 42.3-119.5 | |||
| Task Time | High | Overall | 74.0 (15.418) | 42.3-118.2 | |
| Low | Overall | 76.4 (17.256) | 42.3-120.0 | ||
| B | Task Time | High | Eye | 84.1 (17.085) | 46.1-108.8 |
| Hand | 90.5 (17.244) | 62.9-125.8 | |||
| Head | 82.0 (20.783) | 45.6-118.5 | |||
| Low | Eye | 85.0 (20.408) | 49.5-130.9 | ||
| Hand | 95.2 (23.996) | 48.7-150.9 | |||
| Head | 82.6 (21.638) | 48.5-126.2 | |||
| Task Time | Overall | Eye | 84.6 (18.762) | 46.1-130.9 | |
| Hand | 92.9 (21.018) | 48.7-150.9 | |||
| Head | 82.3 (21.083) | 45.6-126.2 | |||
| Task Time | High | Overall | 85.6 (18.625) | 45.6-125.8 | |
| Low | Overall | 87.6 (22.538) | 48.5-150.9 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).