Table 5.

Summary of user studies in Collaboration application area.

References	Topic	Data type	Displays used	Dependent variables	Study type	Participants (female)
Almeida et al., 2012	AR based video meetings	S	DT	Rating	Formal	10 (0)
Chastine et al., 2007	Collaboration	S	HMD	Interview answers	Formal	16 (4)
Chen et al., 2013	Remote collaboration	O + S	HH	Time, Subjective feedback	Field	16 (7)
Gauglitz et al., 2012	Remote collaboration	O + S	HH, DT	Error/Accuracy, Rating	Formal	48 (21)
	with an expert				Completed task count
Gauglitz et al., 2014a	Annotations in	S	HH, DT,	User preference	Field	11 (5)
	remote Collaboration		DT touchscreen
Gauglitz et al., 2014b	Remote collaboration	O + S	HH, DT	Time, Error/Accuracy, Rating	Formal	60 (29)
Grasset et al., 2005	Collaboration	O + S	HMD	Time, Error/Accuracy,	Formal	14 (2)
				Rating, Subject movement
Henrysson et al., 2005a	Games, Interaction,	O	HH	Rating	Formal	12 (0)
	Tangible Interfaces
Kasahara and Rekimoto, 2014	Remote Collaboration	O + S	HMD	Time, Rating, Body movement	Formal	10 (0)
Poelman et al., 2012	Remote Collaboration,	S	HMD	Observation and discussion	Field	5 (0)
	Crime Scene Investigation
Sodhi et al., 2013	Remote Collaboration	S	HH	Rating	Formal	8 (1)
Wang and Dunston, 2011	Collaboration	O + S	HMD	Time, NASA TLX	Formal	16 (4)

S, Subjective; O, Objective; DT, Desktop; HH, handheld. Participant numbers are absolute values, and where more than one study was reported in the paper we used average counts.