skip to main content
10.1145/2522848.2522885acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesicmi-mlmiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evaluating dual-view perceptual issues in handheld augmented reality: device vs. user perspective rendering

Published:09 December 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

In handheld Augmented Reality (AR) the magic-lens paradigm is typically implemented by rendering the video stream captured by the back-facing camera onto the device's screen. Unfortunately, such implementations show the real world from the device's perspective rather than the user's perspective. This dual-perspective results in misaligned and incorrectly scaled imagery, a predominate cause for the dual-view problem with potential to distort user's spatial perception. This paper presents a user study that analyzes users' expectations, spatial-perception, and their ability to deal with the dual-view problem, by comparing device-perspective and fixed Point-of-View (POV) user-perspective rendering. The results confirm the existence of the dual-view perceptual issue and that the majority of participants expect user-perspective rendering irrespective of their previous AR experience. Participants also demonstrated significantly better spatial perception and preference of the user-perspective view.

References

  1. Arthur, K. W., Booth, K. S., and Ware, C. "Evaluating 3D task performance for fish tank virtual worlds," ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 239--265, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Asteriadis, S., Karpouzis, K., and Kollias, S., "Head pose estimation with one camera, in uncalibrated environments," In EGIHMI '10, pp. 55--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Baričević, D., Lee, C., Tobias, H., and Bowman, D.A., "A Hand-Held AR Magic Lens with User-Perspective Rendering," In ISMAR'12, pp. 197--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Baudisch, P., Good, N., Bellotti, V., and Schraedley, P., "Keeping Things in Context: A Comparative Evaluation of Focus Plus Context Screens, Overviews, and Zooming," In SIGCHI '02, 2002, pp. 259--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bier, E.A., Stone, M.C., Pier, K., Buxton, W., and DeRose, T. D., "Toolglass and magic lens: the see- through interface," In SIGGRAPH '93, pp. 73--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Čopič, P., K., Coulton, P. and Hutchinson, D., Utilizing Sensor Fusion in Markerless Mobile Augmented Reality. In MobileHCI '11, pp. 663--666. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Čopič, P., K., Coulton, P., and Alexander, J., "Creating a Stereoscopic Magic-lens to Improve Depth Perception in Handheld Augmented Reality". In MobileHCI '13, pp. 448--451. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cutting, J., "Reconceiving Perceptual Space, in Perceiving Pictures: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Pictorial Space", MIT Press: Cambridge, pp. 215--238, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Hart, S. and Staveland, L., "Development of NASA- TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research," Human Mental Workload, 1, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Henze, N., Boll, S., "Who's That Girl? Handheld Augmented Reality for Printed Photo Books", In INTERACT '11, pp. 134--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Hill, A., Wilson, J., Davidson, B., Gandy, M., and Macintyre, B., "Virtual Transparency: Introducing Parallax View into Video See-through AR," In ISMAR '11, pp. 239--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Izadi, S., Kim, D., and Hilliges, O., "KinectFusion: Real-time 3D Reconstruction and Interaction Using a Moving Depth Camera," In UIST '11, pp. 559--568. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Klein, G. and Murray, D., "Parallel tracking and mapping on a camera phone," In ISMAR '09, pp. 83--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kruijff, E. and Ii, J. E. S., "Perceptual Issues in Augmented Reality Revisited," In ISMAR '09, pp. 3--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kurz, D. and Benhimane, S., "Gravity-Aware Handheld Augmented Reality," In ISMAR '11, pp. 111--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Lee, W., Park, Y., Lepetit, V., and Woo, W., "Point-and-shoot for ubiquitous tagging on mobile phones," In ISMAR '10, pp. 57--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Liao, C., Liu, Q., 13Liew, B., and Wilcox, L., "Pacer: fine-grained interactive paper via camera-touch hybrid gestures on a cell phone," In CHI '10, pp. 2441--2450. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Mehra, S., Werkhoven, P., and Worring, M., "Navigating on Handheld Displays: Dynamic versus Static Peephole Navigation," In TOCHI '06, pp. 448--457. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Newcombe, R., Lovegrove, S., and Davison, A., "DTAM: Dense tracking and mapping in real-time," In ICCV '11, pp. 2320--2327. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Norman, D. A. The Design of Everyday Things. Published by Basic Books, September 17, 2002. ISBN- 10: 0465067107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Oh, J. and Hua, H., "User evaluations on form factors of tangible magic lens," In ISMAR '06, pp. 23--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Olsson T., and Salo M., "Online user survey on current mobile augmented reality applications". In ISMAR '11, pp. 75--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Robbins, D. C., Cutrell E., Sarin R., and Horvitz E., "ZoneZoom: map navigation for smartphones with recursive view segmentation," In AVI '04, 2004, pp. 231--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Rohs, M., Schöning, M., Raubal, G., Essl, and A. Krüger, "Map Navigation with Mobile Devices: Virtual versus Physical Movement with and without Visual Context Categories and Subject Descriptors," In ICMI' 07, pp. 146--153. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Rohs, M., Schöning, J., Schleicher, R., Essl, G., Naumann, A., and Krüger, A., "Impact of Item Density on Magic Lens Interactions," In MobileHCI '09, pp. 1--4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Wagner, D., Reitmayr, G., Mulloni, A., Drummond, T., and Schmalstieg, D., "Pose tracking from natural features on mobile phones," In ISMAR '08, pp. 125--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating dual-view perceptual issues in handheld augmented reality: device vs. user perspective rendering

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ICMI '13: Proceedings of the 15th ACM on International conference on multimodal interaction
      December 2013
      630 pages
      ISBN:9781450321297
      DOI:10.1145/2522848

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 December 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ICMI '13 Paper Acceptance Rate49of133submissions,37%Overall Acceptance Rate453of1,080submissions,42%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader