Investigating the impact of virtual element misalignment in collaborative Augmented Reality experiences (2404.09174v2)
Abstract: The collaboration in co-located shared environments has sparked an increased interest in immersive technologies, including Augmented Reality (AR). Since research in this field has primarily focused on individual user experiences in AR, the collaborative aspects within shared AR spaces remain less explored, and fewer studies can provide guidelines for designing this type of experience. This article investigates how the user experience in a collaborative shared AR space is affected by divergent perceptions of virtual objects and the effects of positional synchrony and avatars. For this purpose, we developed an AR app and used two distinct experimental conditions to study the influencing factors. Forty-eight participants, organized into 24 pairs, participated in the experiment and jointly interacted with shared virtual objects. Results indicate that divergent perceptions of virtual objects did not directly influence communication and collaboration dynamics. Conversely, positional synchrony emerged as a critical factor, significantly enhancing the quality of the collaborative experience. On the contrary, while not negligible, avatars played a relatively less pronounced role in influencing these dynamics. The findings can potentially offer valuable practical insights, guiding the development of future collaborative AR/VR environments.
- R. T. Azuma, “A survey of augmented reality,” Presence, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355–385, Aug. 1997.
- M. Billinghurst and H. Kato, “Collaborative augmented reality,” Commun. ACM, vol. 45, no. 7, p. 64–70, jul 2002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/514236.514265
- Y. Kim and S. Sundar, “Visualizing ideal self vs. actual self through avatars: Impact on preventive health outcomes,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1356–1364, Jul. 2012.
- D. Bowman and R. McMahan, “Virtual reality: How much immersion is enough?” Computer, vol. 40, pp. 36 – 43, 08 2007.
- H. Y. Weng, J. L. Feldman, L. Leggio, V. Napadow, J. Park, and C. J. Price, “Interventions and manipulations of interoception,” Trends Neurosci., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 52–62, Jan. 2021.
- C. Pidel and P. Ackermann, “Collaboration in virtual and augmented reality: A systematic overview,” in International Conference on Augmented and Virtual Reality, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:221380739
- D. Schmalstieg, A. Fuhrmann, Z. Szalavari, and M. Gervautz, “An environment for collaboration in augmented reality,” Virtual Environments (CVE) ….
- A. Irlitti, R. T. Smith, S. Von Itzstein, M. Billinghurst, and B. H. Thomas, “Challenges for asynchronous collaboration in augmented reality,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct), 2016, pp. 31–35.
- H. Regenbrecht and T. Schubert, “Measuring presence in augmented reality environments: Design and a first test of a questionnaire,” 2021.
- N. Osmers, M. Prilla, O. Blunk, G. George Brown, M. Janßen, and N. Kahrl, “The role of social presence for cooperation in augmented reality on head mounted devices: A literature review,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’21. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445633
- A. H. Hoppe, F. van de Camp, and R. Stiefelhagen, “Shisha: Enabling shared perspective with face-to-face collaboration using redirected avatars in virtual reality,” Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., vol. 4, no. CSCW3, jan 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3432950
- B. Yoon, H.-i. Kim, G. A. Lee, M. Billinghurst, and W. Woo, “The effect of avatar appearance on social presence in an augmented reality remote collaboration,” in 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 2019, pp. 547–556.
- T. Franke, C. Attig, and D. Wessel, “Assessing affinity for technology interaction – the affinity for technology interaction (ati) scale. scale description – english and german scale version,” 07 2017.
- B. Laugwitz, T. Held, and M. Schrepp, “Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire,” vol. 5298, 11 2008, pp. 63–76.
- M. Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention,” http://www.mkc.ac.in/pdf/study-material/psychology/2ndSem/UNIT-4-flow-and-creativty-AG.pdf, accessed: 2023-10-4.
- M. Csikszentmihalyi and K. Rathunde, “The measurement of flow in everyday life: toward a theory of emergent motivation,” Nebr. Symp. Motiv., vol. 40, pp. 57–97, 1992.
- S. A. Jackson and H. W. Marsh, “Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale,” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 17–35, Mar. 1996.
- T. W. Schubert, “The sense of presence in virtual environments:,” Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 69–71, 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1026//1617-6383.15.2.69
- R. A. Armstrong, “When to use the bonferroni correction,” Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 502–508, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/opo.12131
- Francesco Vona (13 papers)
- Sina Hinzmann (2 papers)
- Michael Stern (13 papers)
- Tanja Kojić (32 papers)
- Navid Ashrafi (7 papers)
- David Grieshammer (1 paper)
- Jan-Niklas Voigt-Antons (28 papers)