Live Captions in Virtual Reality (VR)

Pranav Pidathala; Dawson Franz; James Waller; Raja Kushalnagar; Christian Vogler

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2210.15072

Live Captions in Virtual Reality (VR)

Pranav Pidathala·Dawson Franz·James Waller·Raja Kushalnagar·Christian Vogler

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Few VR applications and games implement captioning of speech and audio cues, which either inhibits or prevents access of their application by deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) users, new language learners, and other caption users. Additionally, little to no guidelines exist on how to implement live captioning on VR headsets and how it may differ from traditional television captioning. To help fill the void of information behind user preferences of different VR captioning styles, we conducted a study with eight DHH participants to test three caption movement behaviors (headlocked, lag, and appear) while watching live-captioned, single-speaker presentations in VR. Participants answered a series of Likert scale and open-ended questions about their experience. Participant preferences were split, but the majority of participants reported feeling comfortable with using live captions in VR and enjoyed the experience. When participants ranked the caption behaviors, there was almost an equal divide between the three types tested. IPQ results indicated each behavior had similar immersion ratings, however participants found headlocked and lag captions more user-friendly than appear captions. We suggest that participants may vary in caption preference depending on how they use captions, and that providing opportunities for caption customization is best.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Pranav Pidathala, Dawson Franz, James Waller, Raja Kushalnagar, Christian Vogler. 2022-10-26. Live Captions in Virtual Reality (VR). https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.15072

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Learning Password Best Practices Through In-Task Instruction

Users often make security- and privacy-relevant decisions without a clear understanding of the rules that govern safe behavior. We introduce pedagogical friction, a design approach that inserts brief, instructional interactions at the moment of action. We evaluate this approach in the context of password creation, a familiar task with clear quality criteria. We conducted a randomized study with 128 participants across four interface conditions that varied the depth and interactivity of guidance. We assessed three outcomes: (1) rule compliance in a subsequent password task without guidance, (2) accuracy on survey questions tied to password rules, and (3) behavior-knowledge alignment, which captures whether participants who correctly followed a rule also recognized it on the survey. Across the guided conditions, participants corrected most rule violations in the follow-up task and showed high behavior-knowledge alignment. Survey results suggested clearer advantages for some rule types, especially symbol related questions. These results position pedagogical friction as a lightweight intervention for security- and privacy-critical interfaces.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Leveling the Playing Field: Temporal Video Segmentation for Individuals with ADHD in Computing Education

Individuals with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often face significant barriers in computing education. In asynchronous learning environments, instructional videos can impose high extraneous cognitive load, often relying on assumptions about sustained attention and working memory that do not align with ADHD neurocognitive profiles. In this work, we evaluate a post-hoc video processing intervention that segments instructional content into single-instruction chunks followed by fixed-length pauses to reduce cognitive load. In a within-participants controlled study with 17 individuals with ADHD and 10 without, we find that the intervention has an equalizing effect. Although it improved performance for all participants, gains were larger for those with ADHD, reducing their errors and hesitations to levels comparable to those of participants without ADHD under the same intervention. These results align with the goals of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), by showing that cognitively-aligned, post-hoc instructional video modifications can reduce performance disparities across diverse neurocognitive profiles.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Human Driver Temperament and the Safety Impact of a C-V2X Denial-of-Service Flooding Attack in Mixed-Autonomy Traffic

Cooperative and connected automated vehicles (CAVs) rely on Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) messages to cross signalized intersections; a denial-of-service (DoS) flood that blocks SPaT forces CAVs into a fail-safe mode. Because human-driven vehicles share the intersection, the safety consequence depends not only on the attack and the CAV fail-safe policy, but on how the surrounding human drivers behave. We investigate this human-factors dimension with a coupled OMNeT++/INET (5G NR-V2X) and SUMO microsimulation of a signalized corridor, sweeping CAV market penetration (10-90%), four calibrated driver temperaments (cautious to aggressive) and two standards-based fail-safe policies, a minimal-risk maneuver (MRM) and an adaptive cruise control (ACC) keep-driving fallback, with each attack arm differenced against its policy-matched no-attack baseline. Temperament's effect on the attack is specific and modest rather than a blanket amplification. Aggressive surroundings worsen one metric, the hard-braking a keep-driving fail-safe forces on nearby drivers (p = 0.03), rising from near zero to +8 episodes/1000 veh-s. They appear to dampen rear-end conflicts, but only because the flood clears the queues aggressive drivers build, so the gain is in flow, not safety. On the attack's primary signatures, CAV red-light running and crossing conflicts, temperament has no detectable effect. It instead dominates baseline risk, producing a 13- to 18-fold cautious-to-aggressive gradient far larger than the attack itself, which acts through a channel already congested by CAV adoption. Human driver populations determine how dangerous the intersection is but do not systematically amplify this attack, so fail-safe design cannot assume a cautious test population bounds the risk.

cs.HC↗