This SoK examines 134 relevant papers on privacy concerns in motion patterns recorded by XR headsets, including how adversaries can obtain users'motion patterns, the inferences they can draw from them, and methods for protecting users and clarifies the state of XR motion privacy.
Abstract
Extended Reality (XR) provides immersive, interactive 3D experiences. To enable these experiences, the devices must track user motion so the system can respond to actions such as grabbing, looking at, or moving an object. However, motion tracking has raised privacy concerns since it records a person's motion patterns. These motion patterns have been studied extensively across various fields (i.e., gait identification and profiling) and have been shown to reveal sensitive information. With the adoption of XR, these patterns became easier to record and obtain than ever. This creates a fundamental privacy tension: motion tracking enables core XR functionality yet requires users to compromise their privacy. Prior systematization-of-knowledge (SoK) studies on XR privacy have examined the field broadly, with motion-related research distributed across several privacy domains rather than treated as a distinct area of study. However, XR motion privacy has gained significant momentum since the prior SoK, with the literature nearly quadrupling in size and thereby warranting a dedicated systematization of this topic. This SoK examines 134 relevant papers on privacy concerns in motion patterns recorded by XR headsets, including how adversaries can obtain users'motion patterns, the inferences they can draw from them, and methods for protecting users. Based on this review, we synthesize a taxonomy of motion modalities, representations, and inference risks; develop an XR motion threat model; systematize the attack and defense approaches in the XR motion literature; identify gaps in the literature; and provide guidelines for future studies evaluating motion privacy mechanisms. Together, our SoK clarifies the state of XR motion privacy and provides recommendations for future evaluations.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 30, 2026
Able to defeat top-ranked human players and more efficient than other models, the new system could help decision-makers in military maneuvers or business negotiations.
Computer scientist, entrepreneur, and philanthropist will collaborate with the MIT Schwarzman College of Computing to advance AI and scientific discovery.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.