XR Interaction, Ergonomics, and Affordances

XR interaction design trades immersion gains against cognitive and biomechanical costs (George, 2025).

2D versus spatial interaction

• 2D interaction: high precision, low physical effort, mature conventions.
• 3D interaction: stronger embodied spatial understanding, higher motor/cognitive demand.

Multimodal perception and cognition

Relevant channels:

• visual depth cues,
• auditory spatial cues,
• somatosensory cues (haptic, proprioceptive, kinesthetic).

Working-memory limits and attentional constraints remain active in immersive contexts.

Technique and ergonomics

Frequent technique families: raycasting, cone/aperture pointing, sphere-casting, indirect tablet control, world-in-miniature mappings.

Ergonomic constraints include sustained arm elevation and high-amplitude repetitive motion.

Affordance consistency

Perceived affordances should match executable ones in the Norman sense of affordances and signifiers. Mismatch increases adaptation cost and action uncertainty.

A compact optimization objective:

references