skip to main content
10.1145/3001959.3001960acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesicmi-mlmiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Multimodal augmented reality: the norm rather than the exception

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 November 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Augmented reality (AR) is commonly seen as a technology that overlays virtual imagery onto a participant's view of the world. In line with this, most AR research is focused on what we see. In this paper, we challenge this focus on vision and make a case for an experience-focused and modalities-encompassing understanding of AR. We argue that multi-modality in AR is the norm rather than the exception, as AR environments consist of both virtual content and our real, physical, multimodal world. We explore the role multi-modal and non-visual aspects of our physical reality can play when creating AR scenarios and the possibilities and challenges that emerge when approaching AR from a modalities-encompassing perspective.

References

  1. Augmented Reality. Oxford English Dictionary, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. R. Azuma. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence, 6(4):355--385, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. R. Azuma, Y. Baillot, R. Behringer, S. Feiner, S. Julier, and B. MacIntyre. Recent advances in augmented reality. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 21(6):34--47, November 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. O. Bau and I. Poupyrev. Revel: tactile feedback technology for augmented reality. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 31(4):89, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. G. Bianchi, B. Knoerlein, G. Szekely, and M. Harders. High precision augmented reality haptics. In Proc. EuroHaptics, volume 6, pages 169--178. Citeseer, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Billinghurst, A. Clark, and G. Lee. A survey of augmented reality. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 8(2--3):73--272, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. V. Buchmann, S. Violich, M. Billinghurst, and A. Cockburn. FingARtips: Gesture Based Direct Manipulation in Augmented Reality. In Proc. GRAPHITE '04, pages 212--221. ACM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. T. Caudell and D. Mizell. Augmented reality: an application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. In Proc. of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, volume 2, pages 659--669. IEEE, Jan 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. T. Chatzidimitris, D. Gavalas, and D. Michael. Soundpacman: Audio augmented reality in location-based games. In Proc. MELECON 2016, pages 1--6. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. S. Corbett-Davies, A. Dünser, and A. Clark. An interactive augmented reality system for exposure treatment. In Proc. ISMAR-AMH 2012, pages 95--96. IEEE, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. S. Doyle, M. Dodge, and A. Smith. The potential of web-based mapping and virtual reality technologies for modelling urban environments. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 22(2):137--155, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. S. Gibson and A. Chalmers. Photorealistic augmented reality. In Eurographics 2003 Tutorial, Granada, Spain, September 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. F. Heller and J. Borchers. Corona: Audio augmented reality in historic sites. In M. de Sa, E. F. Churchill, and K. Isbister, editors, MobileHCI 2011 Workshop on Mobile Augmented Reality: Design Issues and Opportunities, pages 51--54, Stockholm, Sweden, August 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. O. Hugues, P. Fuchs, and O. Nannipieri. New Augmented Reality Taxonomy: Technologies and Features of Augmented Environment. In B. Furht, editor, Handbook of Augmented Reality, pages 47--63. Springer New York, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. S. Irawati, S. Green, M. Billinghurst, A. Duenser, and H. Ko. "Move the couch where?": developing an augmented reality multimodal interface. In Proc. ISMAR 2006, pages 183--186. IEEE, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. Kim, Y. Kim, and S.-H. Lee. On Visual Artifacts of Physics Simulation in Augmented Reality Environment. In Proc. ISUVR '11, pages 25--28, Washington, DC, USA, 2011. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. N. Koizumi, H. Tanaka, Y. Uema, and M. Inami. Chewing jockey: augmented food texture by using sound based on the cross-modal effect. In Proc. ACE 2011, page 21. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. W. Lindeman, G. Lee, L. Beattie, H. Gamper, R. Pathinarupothi, and A. Akhilesh. Geoboids: A mobile ar application for exergaming. In Proc. ISMAR-AMH 2012, pages 93--94. IEEE, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. R. W. Lindeman and H. Noma. A classification scheme for multi-sensory augmented reality. In Proc. VRST 2007, pages 175--178. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. W. E. Mackay. Augmenting reality: A new paradigm for interacting with computers. La recherche, 284:1--9, March 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. P. Milgram and F. Kishino. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, E77-D(12):1321--1329, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. K. Minamizawa, S. Fukamachi, H. Kajimoto, N. Kawakami, and S. Tachi. Gravity Grabber: Wearable Haptic Display to Present Virtual Mass Sensation. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2007, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. T. Narumi, T. Kajinami, T. Tanikawa, and M. Hirose. Meta cookie. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2010 Posters, page 143. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. T. Narumi, S. Nishizaka, T. Kajinami, T. Tanikawa, and M. Hirose. Meta cookie+: an illusion-based gustatory display. In Virtual and Mixed Reality-New Trends, pages 260--269. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. T. Narumi, M. Sato, T. Tanikawa, and M. Hirose. Evaluating cross-sensory perception of superimposing virtual color onto real drink: toward realization of pseudo-gustatory displays. In Proc. AH '10, page 18. ACM, 2010b. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Olwal, H. Benko, and S. Feiner. Senseshapes: Using statistical geometry for object selection in a multimodal augmented reality system. In Proc. ISMAR 2003, page 300. IEEE Computer Society, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. W. Piekarski and B. H. Thomas. ARQuake: the outdoor augmented reality gaming system. Communications of the ACM, 45(1):36--38, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. H. T. Regenbrecht and M. T. Wagner. Interaction in a collaborative augmented reality environment. In Proc. CHI'02 Extended Abstracts, pages 504--505. ACM, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. D. Reiners, D. Stricker, G. Klinker, and S. Müller. Augmented reality for construction tasks: Doorlock assembly. Proc. IWAR '98, 98(1):31--46, November 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. J. M. Rozier. Hear&there: An augmented reality system of linked audio. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. H. Schraffenberger and E. van der Heide. From Coexistence to Interaction: Influences Between the Virtual and the Real in Augmented Reality. In K. Cleland, L. Fisher, and R. Harley, editors, Proc. ISEA 2013, pages 1--3, Sydney, 2013a.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. H. Schraffenberger and E. van der Heide. Everything augmented: On the real in augmented reality. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts, 6(1):17--29, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. J. R. Vallino. Interactive augmented reality. PhD thesis, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. F. Zhou, H. B.-L. Duh, and M. Billinghurst. Trends in Augmented Reality Tracking, Interaction and Display: A Review of Ten Years of ISMAR. In Proc. ISMAR 2008, pages 193--202, Washington, DC, USA, 2008. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Multimodal augmented reality: the norm rather than the exception

                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 Other conferences
                  MVAR '16: Proceedings of the 2016 workshop on Multimodal Virtual and Augmented Reality
                  November 2016
                  44 pages
                  ISBN:9781450345590
                  DOI:10.1145/3001959

                  Copyright © 2016 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: 16 November 2016

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article

                  Acceptance Rates

                  MVAR '16 Paper Acceptance Rate9of14submissions,64%Overall Acceptance Rate9of14submissions,64%

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader