Prior avatar embodiment research has studied tracking completeness (how faithfully the body, hands, and face are sensed and reproduced) and personalized appearance in isolation, each requiring specialized lab equipment. How these factors interact on consumer hardware remains an open question, because no existing system unifies body pose, face, hands, and personalized appearance on a standalone headset. We present FlowAvatar, a system enabling real-time personalized look-alike avatars with full-body pose, hand articulation, facial expression, and eye gaze tracking from sparse egocentric inputs on consumer XR devices (Meta Quest Pro). Our pose model achieves competitive spatial accuracy and state-of-the-art temporal consistency on the AMASS benchmark against prior works with comprehensive spatial and temporal losses validated through architecture and loss ablations, while running in real-time. Two user studies (N=12, N=10) provide converging evidence that tracking completeness and personalized appearance serve complementary roles: tracking completeness broadly improves perceived motion quality, while only their combination achieves positive total embodiment.
Figures & tables
Method
Body Pose
Face
Hands
Personalized
On-Device
MPJPE
MPJVE
Jitter
Meta Quest Full Body [ 43 ]
✓
×
✓
×
✓
–
–
–
Apple Vision Pro Persona [ 6 ]
×
✓
✓
✓
✓
–
–
–
Pixel Codec Avatar [ 39 ]
×
✓
×
✓
✓
–
–
–
AvatarPoser [ 30 ]
✓
×
×
×
×
6.62
33.16
10.79
AGRoL [ 17 ]
✓
×
×
×
×
6.74
24.14
6.33
AvatarJLM [ 72 ]
✓
×
×
×
×
5.96
27.50
6.91
Table 1: Comparison with related work for user digitization on consumer XR devices without additional instrumented sensors.
Figure 1: Pose estimation architecture: three parallel BiGRU networks (upper body, lower body, root) process shared embedded features to generate SMPL-X parameters.
Figure 2: Examples of hand (A–C) and facial expression (D–F) capture on Meta Quest, remapped to SMPL-X mesh.
Figure 3: Texture generation pipeline: (A) preprocessing, (B) face alignment, (C) region-specific differentiable rendering, (D) compositing and upscaling.
Method
MPJRE ↓
MPJPE ↓
MPJVE ↓
Jit. ↓
AvatarPoser [ 30 ]
4.68
6.62
33.16
10.79
AGRoL [ 17 ]
4.38
6.74
24.14
6.33
AvatarJLM [ 72 ]
4.45
5.96
27.50
6.91
HMDPoser [ 14 ]
4.27
5.44
30.15
5.62
EgoPoser [ 29 ]
4.45
6.85
35.20
18.64
FlowAvatar (ours)
4.19
5.40
21.72
3.77
Table 2: FlowAvatar compared with prior works on AMASS.
Strategy
MPJRE ↓
MPJVE ↓
Jitter ↓
H-PE ↓
No temporal loss
4.55
25.58
5.17
2.50
No hand loss
4.41
23.26
3.91
2.98
No ground loss
4.31
22.55
4.05
2.25
All losses
4.19
21.72
3.77
2.31
Table 3: Ablation across different loss configurations.
Table 5: Ablation study on face alignment and upscaling.
Figure 4: Texture ablation on (A) our capture data and (B) People Snapshot dataset. Face alignment and upscaling improve facial detail.
Figure 5: Example sequence (Anger) from the third-person motion quality study: ground truth, then representations (R1) Stick Figure, (R2) Minimal Body (no hands/face), (R3) Base Body (no texture), and (R4) Photo-real (personalized look-alike texture).
Motion Sequences
S1: Greeting
Waving, smiling, clapping — upper body gestures in social interaction
Jumping, smiling, rhythmic movement — whole-body motion with subtle expressions
S4: Exercise
Squatting, jumping, boxing — dynamic full-body tracking under high intensity
S5: Workplace
Sitting/standing transitions, desktop tasks — fine hand movements and body transitions
Evaluation Dimensions
Table 6: Motion sequences and evaluation dimensions (the four avatar representations R1–R4 are shown in Figure 5 ).
+Tracking (R2 → R3)
+Texture (R3 → R4)
p ( padj )
r [CI]
p ( padj )
r [CI]
Q1
\textless.001∗∗∗ ( .004 )
+0.97 [+0.5, +1.1]
.098† (.488)
+0.58 [ − 0.0, +0.8]
Q2
\textless.001∗∗∗ ( .001 )
+1.00 [+0.6, +1.5]
.512 (.948)
+0.25 [ − 0.2, +0.4]
Q3
\textless.001∗∗∗ ( .001 )
+1.00 [+0.8, +1.7]
.316 (.948)
+0.33 [ − 0.1, +0.5]
Q4
.014∗ ( .014 )
+0.85 [+0.3, +1.1]
.004∗∗ ( .023 )
+0.96 [+0.3, +1.0]
Q5
.002∗∗ ( .004 )
+1.00 [+0.7, +1.8]
.152 (.609)
+0.56 [ − 0.0, +0.3]
Table 7: Motion quality: paired Wilcoxon results for the two key contrasts across Q1–Q6. r is the rank-biserial effect size, CI the 95% bootstrap CI of the paired mean difference. Exact- p markers: †p<.10 , ∗p<.05 , ∗∗p<.01 , ∗∗∗p<.001 ; bold padj survives Holm correction.
Figure 6: Third-person motion quality study: Mean ratings with standard error for four avatar representations across five motion sequences and six evaluation dimensions.
Figure 7: Embodiment study: (A) participant’s pose; avatar representations: (B) FlowAvatar Base Body; (C) Meta Avatar; (D) FlowAvatar Photo-real (personalized look-alike texture). (E) Five participants’ avatars during study.
Photo vs. Base
Photo vs. Meta
Subscale
p ( padj )
r [CI]
p ( padj )
r [CI]
Ownership
.062† (.250)
+0.67 [+0.7, +9.2]
.668 (1.000)
+0.18 [ − 4.6, +6.6]
Agency
.125 (.250)
+0.64 [+0.0, +3.1]
.043∗ (.258)
+0.73 [+0.8, +7.3]
Location
.102 (.250)
+0.67 [+0.1, +3.9]
.109 (.547)
+0.64 [+0.2, +6.4]
Appearance
.031∗ (.164)
+1.00 [+0.9, +5.0]
1.000 (1.000)
− 0.04 [ − 1.3, +2.4]
Response
.078† (.250)
+0.82 [+0.3, +3.0]
.500 (1.000)
+0.67 [ − 0.2, +2.8]
Table 8: Embodiment (N=10, exploratory): paired Wilcoxon results. Photo vs. Base isolates texture (tracking held constant). Photo vs. Meta additionally varies tracking and style. r is rank-biserial, CI the 95% bootstrap CI of the paired mean difference. Exact- p markers: †p<.10 , ∗p<.05 ; no comparison survives Holm correction ( padj ).
Figure 8: First-person embodiment study: CoolMoves [ 2 , 50 ] subscale scores (centered at 0) for three avatar conditions. Photo-real was the only condition with positive Total Embodiment.