ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User...

26
Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality: Device vs. User Perspective Rendering Klen Čopič Pucihar Dr. Paul Coulton Dr. Jason Alexander

description

In handheld Augmented Reality (AR) the magic-lens paradigm is typically implemented by rendering the video stream captured by the back-facing camera onto the device’s screen. Unfortunately, such implementations show the real world from the device’s perspective rather than the user’s perspective. This dual-perspective results in misaligned and incorrectly scaled imagery, a predominate cause for the dual-view problem with potential to distort user’s spatial perception. This paper presents a user study that analyzes users’ expectations, spatial-perception, and their ability to deal with the dual-view problem, by comparing device-perspective and fixed Point-of-View (POV) user-perspective rendering. The results confirm the existence of the dual-view perceptual issue and that the majority of participants expect user-perspective rendering irrespective of their previous AR experience. Participants also demonstrated significantly better spatial perception and preference of the user-perspective view. Full Paper: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2522848.2522885

Transcript of ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User...

Page 1: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality: Device vs. User Perspective Rendering

Klen Čopič PuciharDr. Paul CoultonDr. Jason Alexander

Page 2: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Image from Google Maps

Page 3: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Image from Google Maps

Page 4: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering
Page 5: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Images from Google Image Search

Page 6: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Images from Google Image Search

Page 7: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering
Page 8: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering
Page 9: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering
Page 10: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Perceptual issue

“Perceptual issues relate to problems that arise while observing and

interpreting information (Kruijff et. al 2010).”

Page 11: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Hands on

Page 12: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Images from Google Image Search

Page 13: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Questions

• What are users’ expectations?• Does the dual-view problem

coupled with user’s expectations result in a dual-view perceptual issue?

• Are expectations of new and returning AR users different?

• How successful are users in dealing with perceptual issues that may arise?

Page 14: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Study Design• We focus on the class of tabletop sized AR

workspaces;• 24 participants: 8 female 16 male aged 21-

45.• Within subject experiment changing only

one variable magic-lens type:

Page 15: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Study A

• What are users’ expectations?• Are expectations of new and returning AR users

different?• Does the dual-view problem result in a dual-view

perceptual issue irrespective of expectations?

Page 16: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Study A Results (1)

• What are users’ expectations? User-perspective rendering

• Are expectations of new and returning AR users different? NO

3

21

Expectations All

Device-perspec-tive

User-perspective

10

Expectations No Prev. AR Use

Device-perspec-tiveUser-perspec-tive

3

11

Expectations With Prev. AR Use

Device-perspectiveUser-perspec-tive

Page 17: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Study A Results (2)

• Does the dual-view problem result in a dual-view perceptual issue? YES

• Does dual-view perceptual issue exist only in the group expecting user-perspective magic-lens? NO

• Why?

T-testP<0.001

F=0.018P=0.896

Only Device-perspective magic-lens

Klen Copic Pucihar
Make sure you jistify this NO!
Page 18: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering
Page 19: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Study B

• How successful are participants at dealing with dual-view perceptual issues?

• Are their expectations affecting their performance?

• How does performance change over time?

Page 20: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Study B Results (1)

• Are users’ successful at dealing with dual-view problem when visuals reintroduced? NO.

• Are expectations affecting performance? NO

T-testP<0.001

T-testP<0.001

F=0.466P=0.5

F=0.404P=0.532

Only Device-perspective magic-lens

Klen Copic Pucihar
Make sure you jistify this NO!
Page 21: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Study B Results (2)

• Do people improve over time? Yes but slower than expected.

T-testP=0.028

T-testP=0.064

Page 22: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Conclusion

• Dual-view perceptual issues exists irrespective of previous AR experience and expectations;

• Participants have a hard time dealing with dual-view problem, especially with the non-centered camera aspect.

• Participants learn how to deal with dual-view perceptual issue but slowly.

• Why is this important?• Are these results applicable outside

handheld AR context?

Page 23: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Image from Sony PlayRoom

Page 24: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Future

• Enhance existing work by introducing hand and dynamic user-perspective rendering.

• Explore if dual-view perceptual problem exists in fixed displays and moving observer AR setup (e.g. PalyRoom).

Page 25: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Map Image from Google Maps

Klen Copic Pucihar
Not 100% sure we introduce the probelm properly.
Page 26: ICMI '13: Evaluating Dual-view Perceptual Issues in Handheld Augmented Reality : Device vs . User Perspective Rendering

Thank you for your time.Questions?