Virtual-_Augmented_and_Mixed_Reality

LNCS 8526 Randall Shumaker Stephanie Lackey (Eds.) Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality Applications of Virtual and Augmented Reality 6th International Conference, VAMR 2014 Held as Part of HCI International 2014 Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 22–27, 2014, Proceedings, Part II 4 123

Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8526Commenced Publication in 1973Founding and Former Series Editors:Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van LeeuwenEditorial BoardDavid Hutchison Lancaster University, UKTakeo Kanade Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USAJosef Kittler University of Surrey, Guildford, UKJon M. Kleinberg Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USAAlfred Kobsa University of California, Irvine, CA, USAFriedemann Mattern ETH Zurich, SwitzerlandJohn C. Mitchell Stanford University, CA, USAMoni Naor Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, IsraelOscar Nierstrasz University of Bern, SwitzerlandC. Pandu Rangan Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, IndiaBernhard Steffen TU Dortmund University, GermanyDemetri Terzopoulos University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USADoug Tygar University of California, Berkeley, CA, USAGerhard Weikum Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbruecken, Germany

Randall Shumaker Stephanie Lackey (Eds.)Virtual, Augmentedand Mixed RealityApplications of Virtualand Augmented Reality6th International Conference, VAMR 2014Held as Part of HCI International 2014Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 22-27, 2014Proceedings, Part II13

Volume EditorsRandall ShumakerStephanie LackeyInstitute for Simulation and TrainingOrlando, FL, USAE-mail: {shumaker; slackey}@ist.ucf.eduISSN 0302-9743 e-ISSN 1611-3349ISBN 978-3-319-07463-4 e-ISBN 978-3-319-07464-1DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-07464-1Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht LondonLibrary of Congress Control Number: 2014939418LNCS Sublibrary: SL 3 – Information Systems and Application,incl. Internet/Web and HCI© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part ofthe material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or informationstorage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodologynow known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connectionwith reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered andexecuted on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publicationor parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location,in ist current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for usemay be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecutionunder the respective Copyright Law.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoes not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevantprotective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication,neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors oromissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to thematerial contained herein.Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversion by Scientific Publishing Services, Chennai, IndiaPrinted on acid-free paperSpringer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

ForewordThe 16th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, HCIInternational 2014, was held in Heraklion, Crete, Greece, during June 22–27,2014, incorporating 14 conferences/thematic areas: Thematic areas: • Human–Computer Interaction • Human Interface and the Management of Information Affiliated conferences: • 11th International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics • 8th International Conference on Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction • 6th International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality • 6th International Conference on Cross-Cultural Design • 6th International Conference on Social Computing and Social Media • 8th International Conference on Augmented Cognition • 5th International Conference on Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management • Third International Conference on Design, User Experience and Usability • Second International Conference on Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions • Second International Conference on Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy and Trust • First International Conference on HCI in Business • First International Conference on Learning and Collaboration TechnologiesA total of 4,766 individuals from academia, research institutes, industry, andgovernmental agencies from 78 countries submitted contributions, and 1,476 pa-pers and 225 posters were included in the proceedings. These papers addressthe latest research and development efforts and highlight the human aspects ofdesign and use of computing systems. The papers thoroughly cover the entirefield of human–computer interaction, addressing major advances in knowledgeand effective use of computers in a variety of application areas. This volume, edited by Randall Shumaker and Stephanie Lackey, containspapers focusing on the thematic area of virtual, augmented and mixed reality,addressing the following major topics: • VAMR in education and cultural heritage • Games and entertainment

VI Foreword • Medical, health and rehabilitation applications • Industrial, safety and military applications The remaining volumes of the HCI International 2014 proceedings are: • Volume 1, LNCS 8510, Human–Computer Interaction: HCI Theories, Methods and Tools (Part I), edited by Masaaki Kurosu • Volume 2, LNCS 8511, Human–Computer Interaction: Advanced Interaction Modalities and Techniques (Part II), edited by Masaaki Kurosu • Volume 3, LNCS 8512, Human–Computer Interaction: Applications and Ser- vices (Part III), edited by Masaaki Kurosu • Volume 4, LNCS 8513, Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction: Design and Development Methods for Universal Access (Part I), edited by Constantine Stephanidis and Margherita Antona • Volume 5, LNCS 8514, Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction: Universal Access to Information and Knowledge (Part II), edited by Constantine Stephanidis and Margherita Antona • Volume 6, LNCS 8515, Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction: Aging and Assistive Environments (Part III), edited by Constantine Stephani- dis and Margherita Antona • Volume 7, LNCS 8516, Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction: Design for All and Accessibility Practice (Part IV), edited by Constantine Stephanidis and Margherita Antona • Volume 8, LNCS 8517, Design, User Experience, and Usability: Theories, Methods and Tools for Designing the User Experience (Part I), edited by Aaron Marcus • Volume 9, LNCS 8518, Design, User Experience, and Usability: User Expe- rience Design for Diverse Interaction Platforms and Environments (Part II), edited by Aaron Marcus • Volume 10, LNCS 8519, Design, User Experience, and Usability: User Expe- rience Design for Everyday Life Applications and Services (Part III), edited by Aaron Marcus • Volume 11, LNCS 8520, Design, User Experience, and Usability: User Experience Design Practice (Part IV), edited by Aaron Marcus • Volume 12, LNCS 8521, Human Interface and the Management of Informa- tion: Information and Knowledge Design and Evaluation (Part I), edited by Sakae Yamamoto • Volume 13, LNCS 8522, Human Interface and the Management of Infor- mation: Information and Knowledge in Applications and Services (Part II), edited by Sakae Yamamoto • Volume 14, LNCS 8523, Learning and Collaboration Technologies: Designing and Developing Novel Learning Experiences (Part I), edited by Panayiotis Zaphiris and Andri Ioannou • Volume 15, LNCS 8524, Learning and Collaboration Technologies: Technology-rich Environments for Learning and Collaboration (Part II), edited by Panayiotis Zaphiris and Andri Ioannou

Foreword VII • Volume 16, LNCS 8525, Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: Designing and Developing Virtual and Augmented Environments (Part I), edited by Randall Shumaker and Stephanie Lackey • Volume 18, LNCS 8527, HCI in Business, edited by Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah • Volume 19, LNCS 8528, Cross-Cultural Design, edited by P.L. Patrick Rau • Volume 20, LNCS 8529, Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management, edited by Vincent G. Duffy • Volume 21, LNCS 8530, Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive Interactions, edited by Norbert Streitz and Panos Markopoulos • Volume 22, LNCS 8531, Social Computing and Social Media, edited by Gabriele Meiselwitz • Volume 23, LNAI 8532, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, edited by Don Harris • Volume 24, LNCS 8533, Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy and Trust, edited by Theo Tryfonas and Ioannis Askoxylakis • Volume 25, LNAI 8534, Foundations of Augmented Cognition, edited by Dylan D. Schmorrow and Cali M. Fidopiastis • Volume 26, CCIS 434, HCI International 2014 Posters Proceedings (Part I), edited by Constantine Stephanidis • Volume 27, CCIS 435, HCI International 2014 Posters Proceedings (Part II), edited by Constantine StephanidisI would like to thank the Program Chairs and the members of the ProgramBoards of all affiliated conferences and thematic areas, listed below, for theircontribution to the highest scientific quality and the overall success of the HCIInternational 2014 Conference. This conference could not have been possible without the continuous supportand advice of the founding chair and conference scientific advisor, Prof. GavrielSalvendy, as well as the dedicated work and outstanding efforts of the commu-nications chair and editor of HCI International News, Dr. Abbas Moallem. I would also like to thank for their contribution towards the smooth organi-zation of the HCI International 2014 Conference the members of the Human–Computer Interaction Laboratory of ICS-FORTH, and in particularGeorge Paparoulis, Maria Pitsoulaki, Maria Bouhli, and George Kapnas.April 2014 Constantine Stephanidis General Chair, HCI International 2014

OrganizationHuman–Computer InteractionProgram Chair: Masaaki Kurosu, JapanJose Abdelnour-Nocera, UK Heidi Kro¨mker, GermanySebastiano Bagnara, Italy Chen Ling, USASimone Barbosa, Brazil Chang S. Nam, USAAdriana Betiol, Brazil Naoko Okuizumi, JapanSimone Borsci, UK Philippe Palanque, FranceHenry Duh, Australia Ling Rothrock, USAXiaowen Fang, USA Naoki Sakakibara, JapanVicki Hanson, UK Dominique Scapin, FranceWonil Hwang, Korea Guangfeng Song, USAMinna Isomursu, Finland Sanjay Tripathi, IndiaYong Gu Ji, Korea Chui Yin Wong, MalaysiaAnirudha Joshi, India Toshiki Yamaoka, JapanEsther Jun, USA Kazuhiko Yamazaki, JapanKyungdoh Kim, Korea Ryoji Yoshitake, JapanHuman Interface and the Management of InformationProgram Chair: Sakae Yamamoto, JapanAlan Chan, Hong Kong Hiroyuki Miki, JapanDenis A. Coelho, Portugal Hirohiko Mori, JapanLinda Elliott, USA Shogo Nishida, JapanShin’ichi Fukuzumi, Japan Robert Proctor, USAMichitaka Hirose, Japan Youngho Rhee, KoreaMakoto Itoh, Japan Ryosuke Saga, JapanYen-Yu Kang, Taiwan Katsunori Shimohara, JapanKoji Kimita, Japan Kim-Phuong Vu, USADaiji Kobayashi, Japan Tomio Watanabe, Japan

X OrganizationEngineering Psychology and Cognitive ErgonomicsProgram Chair: Don Harris, UKGuy Andre Boy, USA Axel Schulte, GermanyShan Fu, P.R. China Siraj Shaikh, UKHung-Sying Jing, Taiwan Sarah Sharples, UKWen-Chin Li, Taiwan Anthony Smoker, UKMark Neerincx, The Netherlands Neville Stanton, UKJan Noyes, UK Alex Stedmon, UKPaul Salmon, Australia Andrew Thatcher, South AfricaUniversal Access in Human–Computer InteractionProgram Chairs: Constantine Stephanidis, Greece,and Margherita Antona, GreeceJulio Abascal, Spain Georgios Kouroupetroglou, GreeceGisela Susanne Bahr, USA Patrick Langdon, UKJo˜ao Barroso, Portugal Barbara Leporini, ItalyMargrit Betke, USA Eugene Loos, The NetherlandsAnthony Brooks, Denmark Ana Isabel Paraguay, BrazilChristian Bu¨hler, Germany Helen Petrie, UKStefan Carmien, Spain Michael Pieper, GermanyHua Dong, P.R. China Enrico Pontelli, USACarlos Duarte, Portugal Jaime Sanchez, ChilePier Luigi Emiliani, Italy Alberto Sanna, ItalyQin Gao, P.R. China Anthony Savidis, GreeceAndrina Grani´c, Croatia Christian Stary, AustriaAndreas Holzinger, Austria Hirotada Ueda, JapanJosette Jones, USA Gerhard Weber, GermanySimeon Keates, UK Harald Weber, GermanyVirtual, Augmented and Mixed RealityProgram Chairs: Randall Shumaker, USA,and Stephanie Lackey, USARoland Blach, Germany Hirokazu Kato, JapanSheryl Brahnam, USA Denis Laurendeau, CanadaJuan Cendan, USA Fotis Liarokapis, UKJessie Chen, USA Michael Macedonia, USAPanagiotis D. Kaklis, UK Gordon Mair, UK

Organization XIJose San Martin, Spain Christopher Stapleton, USATabitha Peck, USA Gregory Welch, USAChristian Sandor, AustraliaCross-Cultural DesignProgram Chair: P.L. Patrick Rau, P.R. ChinaYee-Yin Choong, USA Sheau-Farn Max Liang, TaiwanPaul Fu, USA Katsuhiko Ogawa, JapanZhiyong Fu, P.R. China Tom Plocher, USAPin-Chao Liao, P.R. China Huatong Sun, USADyi-Yih Michael Lin, Taiwan Emil Tso, P.R. ChinaRungtai Lin, Taiwan Hsiu-Ping Yueh, TaiwanTa-Ping (Robert) Lu, Taiwan Liang (Leon) Zeng, USALiang Ma, P.R. China Jia Zhou, P.R. ChinaAlexander M¨adche, GermanyOnline Communities and Social MediaProgram Chair: Gabriele Meiselwitz, USALeonelo Almeida, Brazil Anthony Norcio, USAChee Siang Ang, UK Portia Pusey, USAAneesha Bakharia, Australia Panote Siriaraya, UKAnia Bobrowicz, UK Stefan Stieglitz, GermanyJames Braman, USA Giovanni Vincenti, USAFarzin Deravi, UK Yuanqiong (Kathy) Wang, USACarsten Kleiner, Germany June Wei, USANiki Lambropoulos, Greece Brian Wentz, USASoo Ling Lim, UKAugmented CognitionProgram Chairs: Dylan D. Schmorrow, USA,and Cali M. Fidopiastis, USAAhmed Abdelkhalek, USA Rosario Cannavo`, ItalyRobert Atkinson, USA Joseph Cohn, USAMonique Beaudoin, USA Andrew J. Cowell, USAJohn Blitch, USA Martha Crosby, USAAlenka Brown, USA Wai-Tat Fu, USA

XII Organization Keith Niall, USA Tatana Olson, USARodolphe Gentili, USA Debra Patton, USAFrederick Gregory, USA June Pilcher, USAMichael W. Hail, USA Robinson Pino, USAMonte Hancock, USA Tiffany Poeppelman, USAFei Hu, USA Victoria Romero, USAIon Juvina, USA Amela Sadagic, USAJoe Keebler, USA Anna Skinner, USAPhilip Mangos, USA Ann Speed, USARao Mannepalli, USA Robert Sottilare, USADavid Martinez, USA Peter Walker, USAYvonne R. Masakowski, USASantosh Mathan, USARanjeev Mittu, USADigital Human Modeling and Applications in Health,Safety, Ergonomics and Risk ManagementProgram Chair: Vincent G. Duffy, USAGiuseppe Andreoni, Italy Tim Marler, USADaniel Carruth, USA Jianwei Niu, P.R. ChinaElsbeth De Korte, The Netherlands Michelle Robertson, USAAfzal A. Godil, USA Matthias Ro¨tting, GermanyRavindra Goonetilleke, Hong Kong Mao-Jiun Wang, TaiwanNoriaki Kuwahara, Japan Xuguang Wang, FranceKang Li, USA James Yang, USAZhizhong Li, P.R. ChinaDesign, User Experience, and UsabilityProgram Chair: Aaron Marcus, USASisira Adikari, Australia Federico Gobbo, ItalyClaire Ancient, USA Emilie Gould, USAArne Berger, Germany Ru¨diger Heimg¨artner, GermanyJamie Blustein, Canada Brigitte Herrmann, GermanyAna Boa-Ventura, USA Steffen Hess, GermanyJan Brejcha, Czech Republic Nouf Khashman, CanadaLorenzo Cantoni, Switzerland Fabiola Guillermina No¨el, MexicoMarc Fabri, UK Francisco Rebelo, PortugalLuciane Maria Fadel, Brazil Kerem Rızvano˘glu, TurkeyTricia Flanagan, Hong Kong Marcelo Soares, BrazilJorge Frascara, Mexico Carla Spinillo, Brazil

Organization XIIIDistributed, Ambient and Pervasive InteractionsProgram Chairs: Norbert Streitz, Germany,and Panos Markopoulos, The NetherlandsJuan Carlos Augusto, UK Ingrid Mulder, The NetherlandsJose Bravo, Spain Anton Nijholt, The NetherlandsAdrian Cheok, UK Fabio Paterno´, ItalyBoris de Ruyter, The Netherlands Carsten Ro¨cker, GermanyAnind Dey, USA Teresa Romao, PortugalDimitris Grammenos, Greece Albert Ali Salah, TurkeyNuno Guimaraes, Portugal Manfred Tscheligi, AustriaAchilles Kameas, Greece Reiner Wichert, GermanyJaved Vassilis Khan, The Netherlands Woontack Woo, KoreaShin’ichi Konomi, Japan Xenophon Zabulis, GreeceCarsten Magerkurth, SwitzerlandHuman Aspects of Information Security, Privacy and TrustProgram Chairs: Theo Tryfonas, UK,and Ioannis Askoxylakis, GreeceClaudio Agostino Ardagna, Italy Gregorio Martinez, SpainZinaida Benenson, Germany Emilio Mordini, ItalyDaniele Catteddu, Italy Yuko Murayama, JapanRaoul Chiesa, Italy Masakatsu Nishigaki, JapanBryan Cline, USA Aljosa Pasic, SpainSadie Creese, UK Milan Petkovi´c, The NetherlandsJorge Cuellar, Germany Joachim Posegga, GermanyMarc Dacier, USA Jean-Jacques Quisquater, BelgiumDieter Gollmann, Germany Damien Sauveron, FranceKirstie Hawkey, Canada George Spanoudakis, UKJaap-Henk Hoepman, The Netherlands Kerry-Lynn Thomson, South AfricaCagatay Karabat, Turkey Julien Touzeau, FranceAngelos Keromytis, USA Theo Tryfonas, UKAyako Komatsu, Japan Jo˜ao Vilela, PortugalRonald Leenes, The Netherlands Claire Vishik, UKJavier Lopez, Spain Melanie Volkamer, GermanySteve Marsh, Canada

XIV OrganizationHCI in BusinessProgram Chair: Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah, USAAndreas Auinger, Austria Scott McCoy, USAMichel Avital, Denmark Brian Mennecke, USATraci Carte, USA Robin Poston, USAHock Chuan Chan, Singapore Lingyun Qiu, P.R. ChinaConstantinos Coursaris, USA Rene Riedl, AustriaSoussan Djamasbi, USA Matti Rossi, FinlandBrenda Eschenbrenner, USA April Savoy, USANobuyuki Fukawa, USA Shu Schiller, USAKhaled Hassanein, Canada Hong Sheng, USAMilena Head, Canada Choon Ling Sia, Hong KongSusanna (Shuk Ying) Ho, Australia Chee-Wee Tan, DenmarkJack Zhenhui Jiang, Singapore Chuan Hoo Tan, Hong KongJinwoo Kim, Korea Noam Tractinsky, IsraelZoonky Lee, Korea Horst Treiblmaier, AustriaHonglei Li, UK Virpi Tuunainen, FinlandNicholas Lockwood, USA Dezhi Wu, USAEleanor T. Loiacono, USA I-Chin Wu, TaiwanMei Lu, USALearning and Collaboration TechnologiesProgram Chairs: Panayiotis Zaphiris, Cyprus,and Andri Ioannou, CyprusRuthi Aladjem, Israel Edmund Laugasson, EstoniaAbdulaziz Aldaej, UK Ana Loureiro, PortugalJohn M. Carroll, USA Katherine Maillet, FranceMaka Eradze, Estonia Nadia Pantidi, UKMikhail Fominykh, Norway Antigoni Parmaxi, CyprusDenis Gillet, Switzerland Borzoo Pourabdollahian, ItalyMustafa Murat Inceoglu, Turkey Janet C. Read, UKPernilla Josefsson, Sweden Christophe Reffay, FranceMarie Joubert, UK Nicos Souleles, CyprusSauli Kiviranta, Finland Ana Lu´ısa Torres, PortugalTomaˇz Klobuˇcar, Slovenia Stefan Trausan-Matu, RomaniaElena Kyza, Cyprus Aimilia Tzanavari, CyprusMaarten de Laat, The Netherlands Johnny Yuen, Hong KongDavid Lamas, Estonia Carmen Zahn, Switzerland

External Reviewers Organization XVIlia Adami, Greece Asterios Leonidis, GreeceIosif Klironomos, Greece George Margetis, GreeceMaria Korozi, Greece Stavroula Ntoa, GreeceVassilis Kouroumalis, Greece Nikolaos Partarakis, Greece

HCI International 2015The 15th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, HCI In-ternational 2015, will be held jointly with the affiliated conferences in Los An-geles, CA, USA, in the Westin Bonaventure Hotel, August 2–7, 2015. It willcover a broad spectrum of themes related to HCI, including theoretical issues,methods, tools, processes, and case studies in HCI design, as well as novel in-teraction techniques, interfaces, and applications. The proceedings will be pub-lished by Springer. More information will be available on the conference website:http://www.hcii2015.org/General ChairProfessor Constantine StephanidisUniversity of Crete and ICS-FORTHHeraklion, Crete, GreeceE-mail: cs@ics.forth.gr

Table of Contents – Part IIVAMR in Education and Cultural HeritageTouching the Past: Haptic Augmented Reality for Museum Artefacts . . . 3 Mariza Dima, Linda Hurcombe, and Mark WrightAugmented and Geo-Located Information in an Architectural 15Education Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ernest Redondo, Janina Puig, David Fonseca, Sergi Villagrasa, and Isidro NavarroThe Didactical Design of Virtual Reality Based Learning Environments 27for Maintenance Technicians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tina Haase, Nathalie Weisenburger, Wilhelm Termath, Ulrike Frosch, Dana Bergmann, and Michael DickBridging the Gap between Students and Laboratory Experiments . . . . . . 39 Max Hoffmann, Katharina Schuster, Daniel Schilberg, and Sabina JeschkeApplying Saliency-Based Region of Interest Detection in Developing 51a Collaborative Active Learning System with Augmented Reality . . . . . . Trung-Nghia Le, Yen-Thanh Le, and Minh-Triet TranA 3D Virtual Learning System for STEM Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Tao Ma, Xinhua Xiao, William Wee, Chia Yung Han, and Xuefu ZhouVisible Breadboard: System for Dynamic, Programmable, and Tangible 73Circuit Prototyping with Visible Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yoichi OchiaiThe Application of Augmented Reality for Reanimating Cultural 85Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sasithorn Rattanarungrot, Martin White, Zeeshan Patoli, and Tudor PascuTraining to Improve Spatial Orientation in Engineering Students Using 96Virtual Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cristina Roca-Gonzalez, Jorge Mart´ın-Guti´errez, Cristina Mato Corredeguas, and Melchor Garc´ıa-Dom´ınguezStaging Choreographies for Team Training in Multiple Virtual WorldsBased on Ontologies and Alignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Emanuel Silva, Nuno Silva, and Leonel Morgado

XX Table of Contents – Part II“Make Your Own Planet”: Workshop for Digital Expression andPhysical Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Hiroshi Suzuki, Hisashi Sato, and Haruo HayamiUsability Evaluation of Virtual Museums’ Interfaces Visualization 124Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stella Sylaiou, Vassilis Killintzis, Ioannis Paliokas, Katerina Mania, and Petros PatiasManasek AR: A Location-Based Augmented Reality Application for 134Hajj and Umrah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mounira Taileb, Elham Al-Ghamdi, Nusaibah Al-Ghanmi, Abeer Al-Mutari, Khadija Al-Jadani, Mona Al-Ghamdi, and Alanood Al-MutariSupport of Temporal Change Observation Using Augmented Reality 144for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Takafumi Taketomi, Angie Chen, Goshiro Yamamoto, and Hirokazu KatoAugmented Reality Workshops for Art Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Marcin Wichrowski, Ewa Satalecka, and Alicja WieczorkowskaGames and EntertainmentSerious Games as Positive Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Luca Argenton, Esther Schek, and Fabrizia MantovaniAn Experience-Based Chinese Opera Using Live Video Mapping . . . . . . . 178 Xiang-Dan Huang, Byung-Gook Lee, Hyung-Woo Kim, and Joon-Jae LeeSerious Games: Customizing the Audio-Visual Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Bill Kapralos, Robert Shewaga, and Gary NgDesigning AR Game Enhancing Interactivity between VirtualObjects and Hand for Overcoming Space Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Kyungyeon Moon, Jonghee Sang, and Woontack WooTHE GROWTH: An Environmental Game Focusing on Overpopulation 210Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charn Pisithpunth, Panagiotis Petridis, Petros Lameras, and Ian Dunwell

Table of Contents – Part II XXIMedical, Health and Rehabilitation ApplicationsResponses during Facial Emotional Expression Recognition Tasks 225Using Virtual Reality and Static IAPS Pictures for Adults withSchizophrenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Esubalew Bekele, Dayi Bian, Zhi Zheng, Joel Peterman, Sohee Park, and Nilanjan SarkarAttention Training with an Easy–to–Use Brain Computer Interface . . . . . 236 Filippo Benedetti, Nicola Catenacci Volpi, Leonardo Parisi, and Giuseppe SartoriAugmented Reality Treatment for Phantom Limb Pain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Francesco Carrino, Didier Rizzotti, Claudia Gheorghe, Patrick Kabasu Bakajika, Fr´ed´erique Francescotti-Paquier, and Elena MugelliniComparing Data from a Computer Based Intervention Program for 258Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agisilaos Chaldogeridis, Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos, Moses Gialaouzidis, and Magdalini TsolakiVirtual Reality-Based System for Training in Dental Anesthesia . . . . . . . . 267 Cl´eber G. Corrˆea, F´atima de Lourdes dos Santos Nunes, and Romero ToriAdaptive Architecture to Support Context-Aware Collaborative 277Networked Virtual Surgical Simulators (CNVSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christian Diaz, Helmuth Trefftz, Lucia Quintero, Diego Acosta, and Sakti SrivastavaThree-Dimensional Fitt’s Law Model Used to Predict Movement Timein Serious Games for Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Sergio Garc´ıa-Vergara and Ayanna M. HowardMulti-users Real-Time Interaction with Bacterial Biofilm Images UsingAugmented Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 Mohammadreza Hosseini, Tomasz Bednarz, and Arcot SowmyaAttention Control and Eyesight Focus for Senior Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Miikka L¨a¨akko¨, Aryan Firouzian, Jari Tervonen, Goshiro Yamamoto, and Petri PulliSense of Presence and Metacognition Enhancement in Virtual Reality 316Exposure Therapy in the Treatment of Social Phobias and the Fear ofFlying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ioannis Paliokas, Athanasios Tsakiris, Athanasios Vidalis, and Dimitrios Tzovaras

XXII Table of Contents – Part IISevere Neglect and Computer-Based Home Training: A Case Study . . . . 329 Inge Linda WilmsIndustrial, Safety and Military ApplicationsSpatial Augmented Reality in Collaborative Design Training:Articulation between I-Space, We-Space and Space-Between . . . . . . . . . . . 343 Samia Ben Rajeb and Pierre LeclercqPassenger Ship Evacuation – Design and Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 Luis Guarin, Yasmine Hifi, and Dracos VassalosEvaluation of User Experience Goal Fulfillment: Case Remote Operator 366Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hannu Karvonen, Hanna Koskinen, Helena Tokkonen, and Jaakko HakulinenIncreasing the Transparency of Unmanned Systems: Applications ofEcological Interface Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378 Ryan Kilgore and Martin VoshellCollaborative Visualization of a Warfare Simulation Using 390a Commercial Game Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hyungki Kim, Yuna Kang, Suchul Shin, Imkyu Kim, and Soonhung HanVELOS: Crowd Modeling for Enhanced Ship Evacuation Analysis . . . . . . 402 Konstantinos V. Kostas, Alexandros-Alvertos Ginnis, Constantinos G. Politis, and Panagiotis D. KaklisApplying Augmented Reality to the Concept Development Stage of theTotal Design Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 Gordon M. Mair, Andrew Robinson, and John StorrAuthoring of Automatic Data Preparation and Scene Enrichmentfor Maritime Virtual Reality Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 Benjamin Mesing and Uwe von LukasAR-Based Vehicular Safety Information System for Forward CollisionWarning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435 Hye Sun Park and Kyong-Ho KimAn Augmented Reality Framework for Supporting and MonitoringOperators during Maintenance Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 Guido Maria Re and Monica Bordegoni

Table of Contents – Part II XXIIIUsing VR for Complex Product Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455 Loukas Rentzos, Charalampos Vourtsis, Dimitris Mavrikios, and George ChryssolourisMaritime Applications of Augmented Reality – Experiencesand Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 Uwe von Lukas, Matthias Vahl, and Benjamin MesingAuthor Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477

Table of Contents – Part IInteraction Devices, Displays and Techniques 3in VAMR 14Classification of Interaction Techniques in the 3D Virtual Environmenton Mobile Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 35 Eliane Balaa, Mathieu Raynal, Youssef Bou Issa, and 44 Emmanuel Dubois 55Multimodal Interfaces and Sensory Fusion in VR for Social 65Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Esubalew Bekele, Joshua W. Wade, Dayi Bian, Lian Zhang, 85 Zhi Zheng, Amy Swanson, Medha Sarkar, Zachary Warren, and 93 Nilanjan SarkarMulti-modal Interaction System to Tactile Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lorenzo Cavalieri, Michele Germani, and Maura MengoniPrinciples of Dynamic Display Aiding Presence in Mixed Reality SpaceDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inkyung Choi and Ji-Hyun LeeCombining Multi-Sensory Stimuli in Virtual Worlds – A ProgressReport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julia Fro¨hlich and Ipke WachsmuthR-V Dynamics Illusion: Psychophysical Influence on Sense of Weightby Mixed-Reality Visual Stimulation of Moving Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satoshi Hashiguchi, Yohei Sano, Fumihisa Shibata, and Asako KimuraExpansion of the Free Form Projection Display Using a Hand-HeldProjector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kaoru Kenjo and Ryugo KijimaStudy of an Interactive and Total Immersive Device with a Personal3D Viewer and Its Effects on the Explicit Long-Term Memories of theSubjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evelyne LombardoResearch and Simulation on Virtual Movement Based on Kinect . . . . . . . Qi Luo and Guohui YangA Natural User Interface for Navigating in Organized 3D VirtualContents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guido Maria Re and Monica Bordegoni

XXVI Table of Contents – Part IRequirements for Virtualization of AR Displays within VREnvironments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Erik Steindecker, Ralph Stelzer, and Bernhard SaskeRobot Behavior for Enhanced Human Performance and Workload . . . . . . 117 Grace Teo and Lauren E. Reinerman-JonesDesigning Virtual and Augmented EnvironmentsSubjective-Situational Study of Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Nataly AverbukhDevelopment of a Squad Level Vocabulary for Human-Robot 139Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daniel Barber, Ryan W. Wohleber, Avonie Parchment, Florian Jentsch, and Linda ElliottTowards an Interaction Concept for Efficient Control of Cyber-PhysicalSystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Ingo Keller, Anke Lehmann, Martin Franke, and Thomas Schlegel3D Design for Augmented Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Ivar KjellmoDon’t Walk into Walls: Creating and Visualizing Consensus Realitiesfor Next Generation Videoconferencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Nicolas H. Lehment, Philipp Tiefenbacher, and Gerhard RigollTransparency in a Human-Machine Context: Approaches for FosteringShared Awareness/Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Joseph B. Lyons and Paul R. HavigDelegation and Transparency: Coordinating Interactions So InformationExchange Is No Surprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Christopher A. MillerTrust and Consequences: A Visual Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Emrah Onal, John O’Donovan, Laura Marusich, Michael S. Yu, James Schaffer, Cleotilde Gonzalez, and Tobias Ho¨llererChoosing a Selection Technique for a Virtual Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Danilo Souza, Paulo Dias, and Beatriz Sousa SantosAugmented Reality Evaluation: A Concept Utilizing Virtual Reality . . . . 226 Philipp Tiefenbacher, Nicolas H. Lehment, and Gerhard Rigoll

Table of Contents – Part I XXVIIAvatars and Virtual CharactersGood Enough Yet? A Preliminary Evaluation of Human-Surrogate 239Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julian Abich IV, Lauren E. Reinerman-Jones, Gerald Matthews, Gregory F. Welch, Stephanie J. Lackey, Charles E. Hughes, and Arjun NagendranA Design Methodology for Trust Cue Calibration in Cognitive 251Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ewart J. de Visser, Marvin Cohen, Amos Freedy, and Raja ParasuramanEffects of Gender Mapping on the Perception of Emotion from Upper 263Body Movement in Virtual Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maurizio Mancini, Andrei Ermilov, Ginevra Castellano, Fotis Liarokapis, Giovanna Varni, and Christopher PetersAR Navigation System Using Interaction with a CG Avatar . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Hirosuke Murata, Maiya Hori, Hiroki Yoshimura, and Yoshio IwaiVirtual Humans for Interpersonal and Communication Skills’ Training 282in Crime Investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Konstantinos Mykoniatis, Anastasia Angelopoulou, Michael D. Proctor, and Waldemar KarwowskiThe Avatar Written upon My Body: Embodied Interfaces and UserExperience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Mark PalmerHow Does Varying Gaze Direction Affect Interaction between a VirtualAgent and Participant in an On-Line Communication Scenario? . . . . . . . . 305 Adam Qureshi, Christopher Peters, and Ian ApperlyDeveloping Virtual and Augmented EnvironmentsAn Image Based Approach to Hand Occlusions in Mixed RealityEnvironments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Andrea F. Abate, Fabio Narducci, and Stefano RicciardiAssembly of the Virtual Model with Real Hands Using AugmentedReality Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Poonpong Boonbrahm and Charlee KaewratFuture Media Internet Technologies for Digital Domes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 Dimitrios Christopoulos, Efstathia Hatzi, Anargyros Chatzitofis, Nicholas Vretos, and Petros Daras

XXVIII Table of Contents – Part IFast and Accurate 3D Reproduction of a Remote Collaboration 351Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABM Tariqul Islam, Christian Scheel, Ali Shariq Imran, and Oliver StaadtFrom Image Inpainting to Diminished Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 Norihiko Kawai, Tomokazu Sato, and Naokazu YokoyaA Semantically Enriched Augmented Reality Browser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Tam´as Matuszka, S´andor Ka´m´an, and Attila KissMobile Augmentation Based on Switching Multiple Tracking Method . . . 385 Ayaka Miyagi, Daiki Yoshihara, Kei Kusui, Asako Kimura, and Fumihisa ShibataHand Tracking with a Near-Range Depth Camera for Virtual ObjectManipulation in an Wearable Augmented Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396 Gabyong Park, Taejin Ha, and Woontack WooMatching Levels of Task Difficulty for Different Modes of Presentation 406in a VR Table Tennis Simulation by Using Assistance Functions andRegression Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daniel Pietschmann and Stephan RusdorfA Pen Based Tool for Annotating Planar Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 Satoshi YonemotoAuthor Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429

VAMR in Educationand Cultural Heritage

Touching the Past: Haptic Augmented Reality for Museum Artefacts Mariza Dima1, Linda Hurcombe2, and Mark Wright3 1University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK mdima@exseed.ed.ac.uk 2University of Exeter, Exeter, UK L.M.Hurcombe@exeter.ac.uk 3Liverpool John Moore University, Liverpool, UK M.W.Wright@ljmu.ac.uk Abstract. In this paper we propose a novel interaction technique that creates the illusion of tactile exploration of museum artefacts which are otherwise impossi- ble to touch. The technique meets the contextual necessity, often requested by museum curators, to background technology and to direct the focus of the mu- seum visitor’s experience to the artefact itself. Our approach relies on the com- bination of haptic interaction and the adaptation of a well-known illusion that enables museum visitors to make sense of the actual physical non-touchable ar- tefact in an embodied way, using their sensory and motor skills. We call this technique Haptic Augmented Reality. Keywords: Museum, haptics, touch, authenticity, haptic augmented reality.1 IntroductionTouch is part of a larger complex of senses which interrelates mental and bodilyprocesses, the haptic sense. Haptic exploration is a fundamental experience that as-sists people in perceiving and making sense of the physical world around them. Thesensory information of the museum exhibits, particularly surface texture and material,is particularly important for museum visitors since the artefacts themselves are thecenter of the social, educative and entertaining experience of a museum visit. Whilstthe value of touch experiences can be debated there is a growing literature on sensoryengagement in museums which seeks to redress the imbalance which has traditionallyallowed the visual sense to dominate [10] [14]. The emphasis on touch experiences in heritage settings and museums has emergedas a distinctive trend from this exploration [6] [24] alongside discussions of sensoryperceptions of materiality as social constructs within both past societies and our ownwith the two not necessarily coinciding [15]. The value of touch has thus receivednuanced debate within museums studies and has been explored as a related set ofsensory concepts [23]. A feature of the role of touch has been the emotional connec-tions of objects and people and the charisma of objects where it is possible to seeR. Shumaker and S. Lackey (Eds.): VAMR 2014, Part II, LNCS 8526, pp. 3–14, 2014.© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

4 M. Dima, L. Hurcombe, and M. Wrightancient artefacts displayed in museums as having an extended object biography bring-ing them into our contemporary cultural context [10] [16]. Within digital technologies and computer applications a number of views anddirections have emerged but the heritage sector in general is seeing a range of develop-ments in the applications of haptic and virtual presentations of objects within museums[11] [5] [8]. In the networking cluster described more fully below the concerns ofheritage sector curators, exhibitions officers and conservators was not so much on thevalue of adding touch experiences to the museum experience but on how to balancecurating the objects whilst providing touch experiences. The charisma of objects and thedesire of people to touch them were acknowledged. Well-known objects were seen asparticularly problematic. That is why the focus of the installations discussed here wasone of the Lewis chess pieces as these objects are amongst the most popular artefacts inthe whole of the collections within the National Museums Scotland.2 Design ProcessVirtual handling of museum artefacts lies within a complex context of different pro-fessional practices, technological development and end-user needs. As part of theScience and Heritage programme funded by EPSRC-AHRC, Linda Hurcombe led aninternational project bringing researchers from different disciplines into a networkingcluster focused on ‘Touching the Untouchable: increasing access to archaeologicalartefacts by virtual handling’. It was therefore appropriate to adopt a design led user-centred approach that wouldbring the many experts involved in a creative dialogue. The interaction technique wepresent in this paper was one of the outcomes of two design-led workshops that tookplace for two days each over the period of six months. Many of the key-issues that arerelated to curatorial practice and technological development were described and dis-cussed in the first workshop, and prototype ideas were developed and presented in asecond workshop six months later. From the first meeting of this group it was evidentthat there were multiple issues faced by the heritage sector and many potential ideasfor solutions. The workshops involved 26 participants from 19 institutions and 6 countries.Disciplines included archaeology, conservation and curation together with art andinteraction design, computer science and haptic human-computer interfaces. Repre-sentatives from small and national museum collections, artifact specialists, theNational Trust, Historic Palaces, the Royal National Institute for the Blind attendedand all presented different points of emphasis offering a richly textured insight intoprofessional practices. The transdisciplinary nature of the first workshop allowed keyissues to be raised and discussed from a plethora of perspectives, while design ses-sions involved participants in collaborative hands-on work and cultivated a number ofideas that were developed as first prototypes and evaluated in the second workshop. On the first day participants gave short position presentations on their work andthe key issues as they saw them. There were also demonstrations of museum speci-mens and haptic technology. The second day consisted of a plenary session where

Touching the Past: Haptic Augmented Reality for Museum Artefacts 5stakeholders discussed a broad range of themes and opportunities arising from theprevious day. Topics included haptic device capabilities, archaeology research agen-das, curation and end users and the potential benefits of virtual handling. Key issues that were raised included:• Haptic installations may deflect interest away from the ancient items on show both physically and conceptually.• The technology for virtual touch needs not to overwhelm its physical setting e.g. a museum gallery and must be able to cope with the visitor numbers (i.e. size of ma- chine, noise, ease of use)• Can haptic experiences get away from the computer desktop?• Products and solutions could be expected to be diverse according to the kind of user and their setting. Rapid-prototyping could be explored for its practical issues and scope.• Financial mechanisms for public display varied and virtual technologies need to be assessed against the robustness of device and costs to set up and expertise to main- tain them.The focus of the present paper is on two of many more prototypes which were devel-oped in response to these key issues and which were presented in the second work-shop for testing and evaluation. They were well received by the stakeholders and aftersome corrections were made, they were deployed and evaluated in two museums: theNational Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh and the Orkney Museum in Kirkwall.These evaluations and prototypes flowed from the first networking grant which pur-sued them to proof of concept stage. More recent work was undertaken as part of asecond grant also led by Hurcombe within the Science and Heritage programmewhich allowed them along with some of the other ideas to be given more extensivepublic trials and development. The full range of installations developed is coveredelsewhere [17] but here the focus is on one famous object presented in two contrast-ing ways.3 The PrototypesThe museum exhibit that was used is an iconic 12th century Scottish artefact knownas the Lewis Queen chess. The artefact is displayed in the National Museum of Scot-land behind a glass case. Both prototypes use the same visual illusion but employdifferent media, one digital and one non-digital. The visual illusion is borrowed fromthe theatre tradition and is called Pepper’s Ghost. A large sheet of glass is placedbetween the audience and the stage. A ghostly image of an actor below the stage isthen projected onto the glass giving the illusion that a ghost is on stage with the ac-tors. Using the Pepper’s Ghost illusion we employed two different media, a 3-Dprinted replica of the chess piece and a haptic device. Both used the glass of the mu-seum case itself as a reflective surface thus ensuring that the focus was the real objector the haptic experience.

6 M. Dima, L. Hurcombe, and M. Wright The replica was created by laser scanning the original artefact, mirroring it to theoriginal (i.e. lateral inversion of the scan data before printing) so that the user’s ex-perience would match the object in the case. The need to present mirror images aspart of virtual reality and co-location interfaces is part of virtual reality issues [3] [18].The replica was then painted black so that it would absorb light thereby reducing itsreflection in the glass case. The replica is placed facing the chess piece at an equaldistance from the display glass (Fig.1). When a user places her hands on the replicaand concentrates her gaze at the original piece behind the glass, she can see her handsreflected in the glass apparently touching the real artefact in the display case (Fig.2).Because she sees the actual artefact (and her hands) and touches the replica she ex-periences the sensation that she is actually touching the artefact itself. The illusion isfurther strengthened by placing a cover over the replica to shield it from the user’sdirect gaze. This cover also contains a light to illuminate the user’s hands so that theirreflection is brighter. Fig. 1. The Lewis Chess piece behind the glass and the mirrored 3-D printed replica The second prototype uses the same illusion but employs a Sensable™ Omni 6DoFhaptic device instead of the user’s hands. The haptic device is placed outside the dis-play case and positioned towards the left of where the replica was so that the reflec-tion of the pen-like stylus of the haptic device is positioned close to the artefact in thedisplay glass. Instead of a replica, a haptic model created from the laser scan of theartefact is algorithmically positioned into the haptic device’s workspace at an equaldistance from the display case (Fig.3). The haptic version is invisible but the modelcan be traced and felt in the physical space by moving the stylus using the same com-bined visual and haptic feedback as with the replica prototype.

Touching the Past: Haptic Augmented Reality for Museum Artefacts 7Fig. 2. Visitor interaction with the replica. Her gaze is concentrated at the original artefactbehind the glass This is a novel way of using a haptic device for immersing museum visitors into adeep understanding of the museum exhibits. In [19] museum visitors explore thesurface of a digital daguerreotype case from the collection of the Natural HistoryMuseum of Los Angeles County. Similarly, the Haptic Museum, developed in theUniversity of Southern California, is a haptic interface that allows museum visitors toexamine virtual museum artefacts with a haptic device [21]. The 'Museum of PureForm' is a virtual reality system that allows the user to interact with virtual models of3-D art forms and sculptures using haptic devices and small-scale haptic exoskeletons[1,2]. The Senses in Touch II, which was installed in the Hunterian Museum in Glas-gow, was designed to allow blind and partially-sighted museum visitors, particularlychildren, to feel virtual objects in the collection via a PC and Wingman haptic mouse[13]. The projects described above have used detailed virtual models of the museumartefacts and allowed the visitor to explore them with the haptic technology. Our goalwas to diverge from the computer screen, and use the haptic technology in a way thatevokes direct haptic interaction with the physical artefact without actually touching itproviding the illusion of doing so. Equally, the Pepper’s ghost technique has been used in the Virtual Showcase, amirror-based interface for viewing real artefacts augmented with virtual geometry [3].In Virtual Showcase no touch is used as the focus is on adding additional virtual ob-jects and other elements onto the real object. ARToolkit-based optical tracking is usedfor tracking the user’s head movement in real time to ensure collocation with the vir-tual components. Head tracking was important in the Virtual Showcase because of thevirtual geometry. In our prototype no tracking of the head is required. As long as the

8 M. Dima, L. Hurcombe, and M. Wright Fig. 3. The haptic device prototypereplica or the invisible haptic model are placed in exactly the same orientation andsame distance from the surface of the glass case, the illusion of co-location is pre-served under all translations and rotations of the viewing angle which preserve a di-rect line of sight from the viewpoint through the case wall to the real artefact.3.1 Embodiment and Sense-MakingOur interaction with the world around us is embodied and multi-modal and we makesense of the world by enacting in it. Enactive knowledge is direct, in the sense that itis natural and intuitive, based on the perceptual array of motor acts. The goal of bothprototypes was to create an embodied and immersive experience for the visitors inorder to provide a sense of authenticity for the ancient artifact. Embodiment and si-tuated cognition places interaction at the center of meaning making and extends theconcept of mind to include the body and environment [25], [7], [22].

Touching the Past: Haptic Augmented Reality for Museum Artefacts 9 The illusion of manipulation that the presented interaction technique creates can beexplained as directly analogous to a classic experiment in situated cognition and per-ceptual plasticity [20]. A subject places their hand on a table hidden behind a parti-tion. On the other side of the partition they can see a dummy hand. Their real handand dummy hand are touched by fingers of a researcher which are synchronized totouch in the same place at the same time but the subject can only see the finger thattouches the dummy hand not the one that touches their real hand. After a short timethe subject perceives the dummy hand to be their own. In the two prototypes, the vis-ual stimulus of the researchers visible finger is replaced by the reflection of the usersown hands or haptic probe. The synchronized haptic stimulus is provided by the sub-jects’ fingers touching the replica or felt through the haptic device when it collideswith the invisible virtual 3d model of the artefact. The haptic device enables hapticexploration and sense-making through multi-modal motor action which makes theman enactive interface [12]. The combination of haptic and visual feedback in bothprototypes enriches the array of senses during the interactive experience and createsmore dimensions of embodiment than having only visual cues.4 EvaluationThe replica based prototype is created using digital technology of laser scanning, 3Dmodelling and rapid prototyping but is itself a non-digital tangible interface. It offersa simple, robust and apparently technology free interaction backgrounding technologyentirely. The haptic device is a digital interface and uses the same laser scan to buildits virtual haptic model. Our intention is to compare these two prototypes in a realmuseum setting. It is a challenge to evaluate user experience that is closely related to embodied, ta-cit understandings, such as in this case. The evaluation goals concern subjective opi-nions of visitor focus, degree of engagement and phenomenological experience. Asthese goals are subjective and not easily mapped to any objective quantifiable factorour evaluation was a combination of gathering feedback, verbal or written, and closeobservation of the way the visitors used the interface, their gestural motions as well asthe social interaction among them during their experience. We were present at all time next to the exhibits and were interacting with thevisitors, observing their interaction with the artefact through both interfaces, havinginformal discussions about their experience, often using probing questions, and trig-gering their reflection when something would break their experience. The visitorswere then asked if they would like to fill in a qualitative questionnaire. They werethen asked to rate with a 5 point Likert Scale (from strongly disagree, disagree, neu-tral, agree or strongly agree) the following statements:1. It is important to engage more senses than the visual as part of the museum expe- rience.2. The installation/replica gave a sense of how the ancient object would feel.3. The installation/replica was straightforward to use.

10 M. Dima, L. Hurcombe, and M. Wright4. Because of the installation/replica there was a better understanding of the ancient objects.5. Overall, the installation/replica enhanced the museum experience.They were also prompted to write any more detailed comments. Both prototypes attracted a number of visitors most of whom were eager to discusswith the researchers and learn more about the project as well as its technical details. Alarge number of visitors would stay for a considerable time and explore the possibili-ties of the interface, giving us verbal feedback and discussing details of its use. Asonly one person at a time could use each prototype, visitors would gather around andwatch, conversing with one another and with the researchers until it was their turn.Children were particularly drawn to the installations and they were the ones to staylonger and explore it. This shows that both interfaces can enable playful engagement. There were 60 questionnaire responses over the two days installation at the Na-tional Museum of Scotland and the two days at the Orkney Archaeological Museum.The initial empirical results demonstrated the potential of both prototypes to provide anovel embodied experience of untouchable artefacts. Visitors’ comments were verypositive for both prototypes but particularly for the replica. The rapid prototype installation successfully produced the sense of haptic explora-tion of the chess piece in a natural and simple way. The setup synchronised the visi-tors’ visual and haptic cues, and consequently, their interaction with the replica wasdirectly translated as interaction with the real statue. One visitor commented ‘As I feltit, I felt like I was touching the one in the reflection and not the replica’. Another onesaid that it ‘feels real and that you feel more connected to its history’. One drawback of the replica installation was the double image of the hands on theglass created by the refraction of the light on the perplex glass. A few visitors foundthis a bit distracting, though not detrimental to the whole experience. The double im-age can be corrected in future versions by calculating optical parameters based on aspecific position where the visitor will be standing. Another interesting commentmade by three visitors was that the texture of the replica should be improved to matchas much as possible the material of the original piece. This would improve the percep-tion of the exhibited piece and will be taken forward in future designs. The main drawback of the haptic interface that was reported from the discussionsand written comments was that the haptic device could not provide a detailed outlineof the statue. Most visitors could not easily perceive the fine details of the statue withthe stylus. One reason for this was the size and detail of the exhibit. The installationcould work very well for larger objects or small objects with little details. The lack ofprecision can be slightly improved by developing a more sensitive collision detectionsystem between the haptic device controller and the haptic geometry which allows formore detailed tracing of the carved details. One of the future tests is to use an artefactwith few details and compare user responses, both verbal and bodily, with those re-ceived in this study. The aim will be to investigate the extent to which the interfaceconveys sufficient realism starting from relatively simple objects. The lack of detailedinformation was also attributed to the single-point contact of the device compared tothe multi finger touch of the hands.

Touching the Past: Haptic Augmented Reality for Museum Artefacts 115 DiscussionThe visitors agreed unanimously that the combination of visual and haptic cues gave amuch better sense of the object, and increased the sense of authenticity in comparisonto just viewing it in its case. Because of the size of the chess piece, some visitorscommented that a seated position would bring the piece on their eye height and re-duce the fatigue from standing up and using the interface. The comparison between the haptic device and the replica showed that the multi-finger tactile interaction with the replica produced considerably richer informationthan the single-point contact of the haptic device. The surface texture and material ofan artefact plays a significant role when exploring haptically an object and the Phan-tom haptic device cannot provide this level of haptic rendering at sufficient quality.The authors acknowledge that a single contact point is relatively little informationcompared to the amount of haptic sensations that a finger can give by touching a tex-ture or a complex surface. The key issue is whether small additions to the museumexperience are worthwhile. The two different installations allow comparative assessments on such issueswhich add to the current literature on heritage applications of haptic and virtual expe-riences with objects. Our research juxtaposed two different experiences to the sameobject allowing for direct comparisons. The relative costs, maintenance issues, andease of use, as well as the visitor feedback and comments all pointed in favour of thecomputer mediated but physical replica compared to the active haptic device. Yetwithout the trial this was not a predictable outcome as the readiness of visitors to en-gage with the virtual reflection and the coalignment of visual hand image with touchexperience was one of the key trial results. In contrast, the haptic pen could havebeen handled by visitors in much the same way as a simple wooden stick could bedrawn across the face of a textured object to probe aspects of its morphology andtextures. The trial results certainly relate to cognitive perception but they also relate back tothe clear directive of the end-users: to hide the technology and for it not to overwhelmthe visitors. Visitors were clearly more comfortable aligning real touch of a hiddenreplica co-located with a virtual reflection than working an obvious computer-relatedlargely unfamiliar device. Though the design of the pen was fairly robust and easy touse as a device once shown, not many visitors knew about haptic pens and the deviceby its nature could not be hidden. These are important aspects in the willingness ofvisitors to engage with unfamiliar technologies versus their desire to interact withobjects within glass cases. Such results have been highlighted in other research [5][11] reinforcing our conclusion that the familiarity of the touch experience at the levelof embodied practice can affect visitor perceptions but that as haptic devices are de-veloped and become more mainstream experiences they can more easily be applied.Still, these statements are based on observing the visitors' readiness to engage with theinstallations and from some visitor comments about preferences between the two. It ismore difficult to attribute this to familiarity versus immediacy which the replicapresents stronger than the haptic pen whether produced by 3D printing or othermeans.