skip to main content
research-article

More than Meets the Eye: The Benefits of Augmented Reality and Holographic Displays for Digital Cultural Heritage

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 March 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Cultural heritage artifacts connect us to past generations and provide links to previous worlds that are beyond our reach. We developed TombSeer, an augmented reality application that aims to immerse the wearer in a museum space engaging two senses (seeing and gesturing) through a holographic heads-up interface that brings virtual, historical artifacts “back to life” through gestural interactivity. This article introduces the TombSeer software prototype and highlights the application of embodied interaction to museum visits using an emerging hardware platform for 3D interactive holographic images (e.g., Meta head-mounted display). This article discusses the TombSeer prototype's development and functionality testing with the Tomb of Kitines exhibit, which was conducted at The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada. TombSeer's embodied gestural and visual augmented reality experience functions to aesthetically enhance museum exhibits, cultural heritage sites, and galleries.

References

  1. G. Abowd and E. Mynatt. 2000. Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans. Comput. Human Interact. 7, 1, 29--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Azuma. 1997. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6, 4, 355--385. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. D. Bryant Clifton (Ed.). 2003. The Handbook of Death 8 Dying. Sage Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. L. Chan, S. Kenderdine, and J. Shaw. 2013. Spatial user interface for experiencing Mogao caves. In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Spatial User Interactions (SUI’13). ACM, New York, NY, 21--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. E. Ciabatti, P. Cignoni, C. Montani, and R. Scopigno. 1998. Towards a distributed 3D virtual museum. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI’98). ACM, New York, NY, 264--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. A. Corbelli. 2006. The Art of Death in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Osprey Publishing, Buckinghamshire.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. P. Dourish and G. Bell. 2011. Divining a Digital Future: Mess and Mythology in Ubiquitous Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N. Gale, P. Mirza-Babaei, and I. Pedersen. 2015. Heuristic guidelines for playful wearable augmented reality applications. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play CHIplay 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Henry, Austin S. Lee, Mark Swift, and John C. Tang. 2015. 3D collaboration method over HoloLens™ and skype™ end points. In Proceedings from the 3rd International Workshop on Immersive Media Experiences. ACM, New York, NY, 27--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. Howard. 2011. Bread in ancient Egypt. Tour Egypt. Retrieved from http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/bread.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Y. Ioannidis, O. Balet, and D. Pandermalis. 2014. Tell me a story: Augmented reality technology in museums. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/cultureprofessionals-network/culture-professionals-blog/2014/apr/04/story-augmented-realitytechnology-museums.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. H. Ishii and B. Ullmer. 1997. Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings from the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’97). ACM, New York, NY, 234--241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Mannion. 2011. British museum - augmented reality: Beyond the Hype Museum -- ID. Retrieved from http://www.museum-id.com/idea-detail.asp?id=336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Meta. 2016. Meta 2. Meta. Retrieved from https://www.metavision.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Microsoft. 2016. HoloLens. Microsoft. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. P. Mistry, P. Maes, and L. Chang. 2009. WUW -- wear ur world -- a wearable gestural interface spatial augmented reality. CHI EA’09: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 411--4116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Newell, L. Robin, K. Wehner (Eds). 2016. Curating the Future: Museums, Communities And Climate Change. Routledge, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. E. Ng Giap Weng, B. Parhizkar, L. Chai Hsiao Ping, and A. Habibi La Shkari. 2011. Augmented reality for museum artifacts visualization. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Secur. 9, 5, 174--185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. D. Park, C. Shi, and T. Nam. 2006. Designing an immersive tour experience system for cultural tour sites. CHI’06: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1193--1198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. I. Pedersen. 2009. Radiating centers: Augmented reality and human-centric design. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-AMH’09).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. I. Pedersen and K. Aspevig. 2013. Breaking barriers of accessibility: Visual Experience, Cultural Exclusion and Blind Participation in Museums. Discursive Spaces: Breaking Barriers to Effective Spatial Communication in Museums Conference. Toronto, June 22, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. I. Pedersen, N. Gale, and P. Mirza-Babaei. 2016. TombSeer: Illuminating the dead. In Proceedings of the 7th Augmented Human International Conference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. E. Pietroni and A. Adami. 2014. Interacting with virtual reconstructions in museums: The etruscaning project. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 7, 2, Article 9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Radsky. 2015. Where history comes alive: Augmented reality in museums. Alchemy Learning. Retrieved from http://alchemylearning.com/where-history-comes-alive-augmentedreality-in-museums/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. B. Ridel, P. Rueter, J. Laviole, N. Mellado, N. Couture, and X. Granier. 2014. The revealing flashlight: interactive spatial augmented reality for detail exploration of cultural heritage artifacts. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 7, 2, Article 6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. Rieland. 2012. Augmented reality livens up museums. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/augmented-reality-livens-up-museums-22323417/?no-ist.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. J. Rekimoto. 2008. Organic interaction technologies: from stone to skin. Commun. ACM, 51, 6, 38--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. Reunanen, L. Díaz, and T. Horttana. 2015. A holistic user-centered approach to immersive digital cultural heritage installations: Case Vrouw Maria. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 7, 4, Article 24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Riggs, Christina. 2005. The Beautiful Burial in Roman Egypt: Art, Identity, and Funerary Religion. Oxford University Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. M. Schavemaker. 2011. Is augmented reality the ultimate museum app? Some strategic considerations. https://mobileappsformuseums.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/isaugmented-reality-the-ultimate-museum-app-some-strategic-considerations/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. M. Schavemaker, H. Wils, P. Stork, and E. Pondaag. 2011. Augmented reality and the museum experience. Museums and the Web. Retrieved from http://www.museumsandtheweb.com/mw2011/papers/augmented_reality_and_the_museum_experience.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. S. Snape. 2011. Ancient Egyptian Tombs: The Culture of Life and Death. Wiley-Blackwell.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. N. Vainstein, T. Kuflik, and J. Lanir. 2016. Towards using mobile, head-worn displays in cultural heritage: User requirements and research agenda. IUI’16: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI’16). ACM, New York, NY, 327--331. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. M. Van Der Vaart. 2014. Using augmented reality in the museum. material encounters with digital cultural heritage. Retrieved from http://mesch-project.eu/using-augmentedreality-in-the-museum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. S. A. Yoon, K. Elinich, J. Wang, C. Steinmeier, and S. Tucker. 2012. Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 7, 4, 519--541.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. More than Meets the Eye: The Benefits of Augmented Reality and Holographic Displays for Digital Cultural Heritage

      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

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
        Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage   Volume 10, Issue 2
        April 2017
        109 pages
        ISSN:1556-4673
        EISSN:1556-4711
        DOI:10.1145/3068422
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2017 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 ACM 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: 21 March 2017
        • Revised: 1 November 2016
        • Accepted: 1 November 2016
        • Received: 1 June 2016
        Published in jocch Volume 10, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader