The hologram in my hand: how effective is interactive exploration of 3D visualizations in immersive tangible augmented reality?

Benjamin Bach, Ronell Sicat, Johanna Beyer, Maxime Cordeil, Hanspeter Pfister

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    We report on a controlled user study comparing three visualization environments for common 3D exploration. Our environments differ in how they exploit natural human perception and interaction capabilities. We compare an augmented-reality head-mounted display (Microsoft HoloLens), a handheld tablet, and a desktop setup. The novel head-mounted HoloLens display projects stereoscopic images of virtual content into a user's real world and allows for interaction in-situ at the spatial position of the 3D hologram. The tablet is able to interact with 3D content through touch, spatial positioning, and tangible markers, however, 3D content is still presented on a 2D surface. Our hypothesis is that visualization environments that match human perceptual and interaction capabilities better to the task at hand improve understanding of 3D visualizations. To better understand the space of display and interaction modalities in visualization environments, we first propose a classification based on three dimensions: perception, interaction, and the spatial and cognitive proximity of the two. Each technique in our study is located at a different position along these three dimensions. We asked 15 participants to perform four tasks, each task having different levels of difficulty for both spatial perception and degrees of freedom for interaction. Our results show that each of the tested environments is more effective for certain tasks, but that generally the desktop environment is still fastest and most precise in almost all cases.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)457-467
    Number of pages11
    JournalIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jan 2018

    Keywords

    • 3D Interaction
    • Augmented reality
    • Augmented Reality
    • Data visualization
    • Immersive Displays
    • Mice
    • Stereo image processing
    • Three-dimensional displays
    • Two dimensional displays
    • User Study
    • Visualization

    Cite this

    @article{64b9020a3b8945b08d99721d1d486e97,
    title = "The hologram in my hand: how effective is interactive exploration of 3D visualizations in immersive tangible augmented reality?",
    abstract = "We report on a controlled user study comparing three visualization environments for common 3D exploration. Our environments differ in how they exploit natural human perception and interaction capabilities. We compare an augmented-reality head-mounted display (Microsoft HoloLens), a handheld tablet, and a desktop setup. The novel head-mounted HoloLens display projects stereoscopic images of virtual content into a user's real world and allows for interaction in-situ at the spatial position of the 3D hologram. The tablet is able to interact with 3D content through touch, spatial positioning, and tangible markers, however, 3D content is still presented on a 2D surface. Our hypothesis is that visualization environments that match human perceptual and interaction capabilities better to the task at hand improve understanding of 3D visualizations. To better understand the space of display and interaction modalities in visualization environments, we first propose a classification based on three dimensions: perception, interaction, and the spatial and cognitive proximity of the two. Each technique in our study is located at a different position along these three dimensions. We asked 15 participants to perform four tasks, each task having different levels of difficulty for both spatial perception and degrees of freedom for interaction. Our results show that each of the tested environments is more effective for certain tasks, but that generally the desktop environment is still fastest and most precise in almost all cases.",
    keywords = "3D Interaction, Augmented reality, Augmented Reality, Data visualization, Immersive Displays, Mice, Stereo image processing, Three-dimensional displays, Two dimensional displays, User Study, Visualization",
    author = "Benjamin Bach and Ronell Sicat and Johanna Beyer and Maxime Cordeil and Hanspeter Pfister",
    year = "2018",
    month = "1",
    doi = "10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745941",
    language = "English",
    pages = "457--467",
    journal = "IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics",
    issn = "1077-2626",
    publisher = "IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers",

    }

    The hologram in my hand : how effective is interactive exploration of 3D visualizations in immersive tangible augmented reality? / Bach, Benjamin; Sicat, Ronell; Beyer, Johanna; Cordeil, Maxime; Pfister, Hanspeter.

    In: IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 01.2018, p. 457-467.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The hologram in my hand

    T2 - how effective is interactive exploration of 3D visualizations in immersive tangible augmented reality?

    AU - Bach, Benjamin

    AU - Sicat, Ronell

    AU - Beyer, Johanna

    AU - Cordeil, Maxime

    AU - Pfister, Hanspeter

    PY - 2018/1

    Y1 - 2018/1

    N2 - We report on a controlled user study comparing three visualization environments for common 3D exploration. Our environments differ in how they exploit natural human perception and interaction capabilities. We compare an augmented-reality head-mounted display (Microsoft HoloLens), a handheld tablet, and a desktop setup. The novel head-mounted HoloLens display projects stereoscopic images of virtual content into a user's real world and allows for interaction in-situ at the spatial position of the 3D hologram. The tablet is able to interact with 3D content through touch, spatial positioning, and tangible markers, however, 3D content is still presented on a 2D surface. Our hypothesis is that visualization environments that match human perceptual and interaction capabilities better to the task at hand improve understanding of 3D visualizations. To better understand the space of display and interaction modalities in visualization environments, we first propose a classification based on three dimensions: perception, interaction, and the spatial and cognitive proximity of the two. Each technique in our study is located at a different position along these three dimensions. We asked 15 participants to perform four tasks, each task having different levels of difficulty for both spatial perception and degrees of freedom for interaction. Our results show that each of the tested environments is more effective for certain tasks, but that generally the desktop environment is still fastest and most precise in almost all cases.

    AB - We report on a controlled user study comparing three visualization environments for common 3D exploration. Our environments differ in how they exploit natural human perception and interaction capabilities. We compare an augmented-reality head-mounted display (Microsoft HoloLens), a handheld tablet, and a desktop setup. The novel head-mounted HoloLens display projects stereoscopic images of virtual content into a user's real world and allows for interaction in-situ at the spatial position of the 3D hologram. The tablet is able to interact with 3D content through touch, spatial positioning, and tangible markers, however, 3D content is still presented on a 2D surface. Our hypothesis is that visualization environments that match human perceptual and interaction capabilities better to the task at hand improve understanding of 3D visualizations. To better understand the space of display and interaction modalities in visualization environments, we first propose a classification based on three dimensions: perception, interaction, and the spatial and cognitive proximity of the two. Each technique in our study is located at a different position along these three dimensions. We asked 15 participants to perform four tasks, each task having different levels of difficulty for both spatial perception and degrees of freedom for interaction. Our results show that each of the tested environments is more effective for certain tasks, but that generally the desktop environment is still fastest and most precise in almost all cases.

    KW - 3D Interaction

    KW - Augmented reality

    KW - Augmented Reality

    KW - Data visualization

    KW - Immersive Displays

    KW - Mice

    KW - Stereo image processing

    KW - Three-dimensional displays

    KW - Two dimensional displays

    KW - User Study

    KW - Visualization

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028730338&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745941

    DO - 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745941

    M3 - Article

    SP - 457

    EP - 467

    JO - IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

    JF - IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

    SN - 1077-2626

    ER -