Table 2.
List of studies comparing different VR or AR visualization technologies
| Authors | Displays | Input | Participants | Task | Avatar | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Subramanian and Levin 2011) | Kaiser XL-50 HMD (IVR) vs. 2D projected screen | Optotrack Certus Motion Capture System | 10 healthy participants + 20 stroke patients | Pointing | No avatar | Better motor performance with 2D screen |
| (Mousavi Hondori et al. 2016) | Projected AR vs. 2D computer screen | Vision-based system | 18 chronic stroke patients | Reaching on a 2D plane | No avatar (real arm seen in AR) | Better motor performance in AR, linked to a decrease in cognitive load, but not measured |
| (Christou et al. 2018) | HTC Vive HMD (IVR) with stereopsis vs. without | HTC Vive tracker on a stick | 18 healthy participants | Path following | Floating tool | Stereopsis increases motor performance |
| (Gerig et al. 2018) | HTC Vive HMD (IVR) vs. 2D computer screen | HTC Vive controller | 10 healthy participants | Reaching with different recreated depth cues | Floating controller or symbolic representation | Better task performance with HMD, no matter the recreated depth cues |
| (Krichenbauer et al. 2018) | Oculus Rift DK2 HMD (IVR) vs. ovrVision on HMD (AR) | Mouse vs. 6 DoF tracked controller | 24 healthy participants | Object selection and transformation task with 9 DoF | No avatar in IVR and real body visible in AR | Faster completion time in AR, but no difference in reported comfort |
| (Chicchi Giglioli et al. 2019) | HTC Vive HMD (IVR) vs. HoloLens (AR) | HTC Vive controller vs. HoloLens’ hand tracking | 36 healthy participants | Cooking simulation with two hands | Floating controllers in IVR | Higher levels of presence and smaller completion time in IVR, linked to differences in input techniques |
| (Dias et al. 2019) | Oculus Rift DK2 HMD (IVR) vs. 2D computer screen | Leap motion | 12 stroke patients | 3 mini-games involving movement in 3D space | Floating hand in unnatural blue color | No significant differences in neither motor performance nor acceptance, no cybersickness, but a preference for IVR |
| (Wenk et al. 2019) | HTC Vive HMD (IVR) vs. Meta 2 HMD (AR) vs. 2D computer screen | HTC Vive controller | 20 healthy participants | Reaching in a 2D space and counting (cognitive) task | Avatar from 1st-person perspective and real body visible in AR | Better movement performance in IVR than with the 2D screen. Multidimensional movements deteriorate only with the 2D screen. No differences in cognitive task |