Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
110 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

I Did Not Notice: A Comparison of Immersive Analytics with Augmented and Virtual Reality (2404.03814v1)

Published 4 Apr 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: Immersive environments enable users to engage in embodied interaction, enhancing the sensemaking processes involved in completing tasks such as immersive analytics. Previous comparative studies on immersive analytics using augmented and virtual realities have revealed that users employ different strategies for data interpretation and text-based analytics depending on the environment. Our study seeks to investigate how augmented and virtual reality influences sensemaking processes in quantitative immersive analytics. Our results, derived from a diverse group of participants, indicate that users demonstrate comparable performance in both environments. However, it was observed that users exhibit a higher tolerance for cognitive load in VR and travel further in AR. Based on our findings, we recommend providing users with the option to switch between AR and VR, thereby enabling them to select an environment that aligns with their preferences and task requirements.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (38)
  1. 2018. https://www.vive.com/us/accessory/controller2018/
  2. 2020. https://www.vive.com/us/support/camtrack/category_howto/base-station2.html
  3. 2023. https://varjo.com/products/varjo-xr-3/
  4. Space to think: large high-resolution displays for sensemaking. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753336
  5. Anonymized. Anonymized for submission. Anonymized for submission. In Anonymized for submission, Anonymized (Ed.). Anonymized for submission, Anonymized for submission, Anonymized for submission.
  6. The Hologram in My Hand: How Effective is Interactive Exploration of 3D Visualizations in Immersive Tangible Augmented Reality? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 1 (2018), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745941
  7. There Is No Spoon: Evaluating Performance, Space Use, and Presence with Expert Domain Users in Immersive Analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934803
  8. The effect of the vergence-accommodation conflict on virtual hand pointing in immersive displays. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15.
  9. Touch the Wall: Comparison of Virtual and Augmented Reality with Conventional 2D Screen Eye-Hand Coordination Training Systems. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00037
  10. J Brooke. 1996. SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry. PW Jordan, B Thomas, BA Weerdmeester and AL McClelland.
  11. Immersive analytics. In 2015 Big Data Visual Analytics (BDVA). IEEE, 1–8.
  12. ImAxes: Immersive Axes as Embodied Affordances for Interactive Multivariate Data Visualisation. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Québec City, QC, Canada) (UIST ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1145/3126594.3126613
  13. Exploring the Evolution of Sensemaking Strategies in Immersive Space to Think. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 12 (2023), 5294–5307. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3207357
  14. Ruth B Ekstrom and Harry Horace Harman. 1976. Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests, 1976. Educational testing service.
  15. Steven Feiner and Ari Shamash. 1991. Hybrid user interfaces: breeding virtually bigger interfaces for physically smaller computers. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA) (UIST ’91). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/120782.120783
  16. A Survey on Cross-Virtuality Analytics. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 41. Wiley Online Library, 465–494.
  17. Comparative Reality: Measuring User Experience and Emotion in Immersive Virtual Environments. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR). 204–209. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIVR.2018.00048
  18. Augmented Reality and Mixed Reality Measurement Under Different Environments: A Survey on Head-Mounted Devices. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 71 (2022), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2022.3218303
  19. Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Human Mental Workload, Peter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati (Eds.). Advances in Psychology, Vol. 52. North-Holland, 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
  20. Augmented Reality versus Virtual Reality for 3D Object Manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 2 (2018), 1038–1048. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2658570
  21. Sensemaking Strategies with Immersive Space to Think. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR50410.2021.00077
  22. Different realities: a comparison of augmented and virtual reality for the sensemaking process. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 4 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2023.1177855
  23. Design and Evaluation of Interactive Small Multiples Data Visualisation in Immersive Spaces. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 588–597. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00081
  24. Immersive analytics. Vol. 11190. Springer.
  25. Comparison in Depth Perception between Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality Systems. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 1124–1125. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8798174
  26. Cross-Virtuality Visualization, Interaction and Collaboration. XR@ ISS 11 (2020).
  27. Marc Satkowski and Raimund Dachselt. 2021. Investigating the Impact of Real-World Environments on the Perception of 2D Visualizations in Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (¡conf-loc¿, ¡city¿Yokohama¡/city¿, ¡country¿Japan¡/country¿, ¡/conf-loc¿) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 522, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445330
  28. Maps Around Me: 3D Multiview Layouts in Immersive Spaces. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, ISS, Article 201 (nov 2020), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3427329
  29. Mohammad Rajabi Seraji and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. 2022. HybridAxes: An Immersive Analytics Tool With Interoperability Between 2D and Immersive Reality Modes. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct57072.2022.00036
  30. Immersive analytics: Theory and research agenda. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 6 (2019), 82.
  31. Framework of affordances for virtual reality and augmented reality. Journal of Management Information Systems 36, 3 (2019), 683–729.
  32. Evaluating the Benefits of Explicit and Semi-Automated Clusters for Immersive Sensemaking. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00064
  33. Online, VR, AR, Lab, and In-Situ: Comparison of Research Methods to Evaluate Smart Artifacts. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300737
  34. Graphical Perception for Immersive Analytics. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 616–625. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00084
  35. A Pilot Study Comparing User Interactions Between Augmented and Virtual Reality. In Advances in Visual Computing, George Bebis, Golnaz Ghiasi, Yi Fang, Andrei Sharf, Yue Dong, Chris Weaver, Zhicheng Leo, Joseph J. LaViola Jr., and Luv Kohli (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 3–14.
  36. Bob G. Witmer and Michael J. Singer. 1998. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 3 (06 1998), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686 arXiv:https://direct.mit.edu/pvar/article-pdf/7/3/225/1836425/105474698565686.pdf
  37. Towards Immersive Collaborative Sensemaking. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, ISS, Article 588 (nov 2022), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3567741
  38. TimeTables: Embodied Exploration of Immersive Spatio-Temporal Data. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 599–605. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR51125.2022.00080
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Xiaoyan Zhou (30 papers)
  2. Anil Ufuk Batmaz (3 papers)
  3. Adam S. Williams (7 papers)
  4. Dylan Schreiber (1 paper)
  5. Francisco Ortega (15 papers)
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets