Collaborative AR: Enhancing Face-to-Face Collaboration
•
5 gostaram•1,220 visualizações
Augmented reality techniques can enhance collaboration by providing spatial cues that improve awareness of partners' actions. Studies found AR collaboration mimicked natural face-to-face interaction more than video conferencing through gestures, speech patterns and subjective feedback. Future collaborative AR systems aim to seamlessly bridge the physical and virtual through wearable displays and tangible interactions to support remote and co-located collaboration.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Collaborative AR: Enhancing Face-to-Face Collaboration
Semelhante a Collaborative AR: Enhancing Face-to-Face Collaboration (20)
Mais de Mark Billinghurst
Mais de Mark Billinghurst (18)
Último
Último (20)
Collaborative AR: Enhancing Face-to-Face Collaboration
- 1. Lecture 6: Collaborative AR Applications pp Mark Billinghurst g HIT Lab NZ University of Canterbury
- 2. Collaboration: What’s that ? Definition f.n. f n a joint work ; between several peoples who generate the creation of a shared task
- 3. Collaborative activities Collaboration: Work, Leisure CSCW (Computer Supported Collaborative Work) Groupware
- 4. Collaboration: Taxonomy Time/Space [Ellis91] Time bu e boa d bulletin board pos , email, a post, e a , fax asynchronous Shared editor meeting, chat, brainstorming, teleconference synchronous seminar Space colocated distant
- 5. Today’s Technology Video Conferencing lack of spatial cues limited participants 2D collaboration Collaborative Virtual Environments separation from real world reduced conversational cues
- 6. Beyond Video Conferencing 2D Interface onto 3D VRML Projection Screen CAVE, WorkBench Volumetric Display p y scanning laser Virtual Reality natural spatial cues
- 7. Beyond Virtual Reality Lessons from CSCW Seamless Enhance Reality Immersive Virtual Reality separates from real world reduces conversational cues
- 8. Collaboration in the Future ? Remote Conferencing Face to face Conferencing
- 9. Central Claim Augmented Reality techniques can be used to provide spatial cues that significantly enhance face-to-face and remote collaboration on three-dimensional tasks.
- 10. Construct3D [Kaufmann 2000] Collaborative geometry education tool g y Different learning modes (teacher, student, exam) Tangible interaction – personal interaction panel
- 11. Collaborative Augmented Reality Seamless Interaction Natural Communication Attributes: Att ib t Virtuality Augmentation Cooperation Independence Individuality
- 12. Seamless CSCW Seam (Ishii et. al.) spatial, temporal, functional discontinuity Types of Seams Functional - between different functional workspaces Cognitive g - between different work practices
- 13. Functional Seams
- 14. Cognitive Seams
- 15. Effect of Seams Functional Seams: Mediated differs from F-to-F Conversation - Loss of Gaze Information - Degradation of Non-Verbal Cues Cognitive Seams: Learning Curve Effects User Frustration
- 16. Unanswered Questions Does seamlessness enhance performance? What Wh AR cues can enhance collaboration ? h ll b How does AR collaboration differ ? What technology is required ? ...
- 17. Collaborative AR Interfaces Face to Face Collaboration WebSpace, Shared Space, Table Top Demo, Interface p , p , p , Comparison, AR Interface Comparison Remote Collaboration SharedView, RTAS, Wearable Info Space, WearCom, AR Conferencing, BlockParty Transitional Interfaces T lI f MagicBook Hybrid Interfaces AR PRISM, GI2VIS
- 18. Face to Face Collaboration
- 19. Communication Cues A wide variety of communication cues used. sua Visual Audio Gaze Gesture Speech Face Expression Paralinguistic Body Position Paraverbals Prosodics Intonation Object Manipulation Writing/Drawing Environmental Spatial Relationship Object Presence
- 20. In computer supported collaboration, however, it is often hard for users to exchange non-verbal communication g cues, even when they are co-located.
- 21. Face-to-face collaboration People surround a table It is easy to see each other Communication S C i ti Space Task S T k Space Computer supported collaboration ll b ti People sit side by side It is hard to see each other i h dt h th Communication Space Task Space
- 22. Shared Space - Table Top Demo Goal create compelling collaborative AR p g interface usable by novices Exhibit content matching card game face to face collaboration physical interaction
- 23. Results 2,500 3,000 2 500 - 3 000 users Observations no problems with the interface bl ih h i f - only needed basic instructions physical objects easy to manipulate spontaneous collaboration Subjective survey (157 people) Users felt they could easily play with other people and interact with objects j Improvements reduce lag, improve image quality, better HMD g, p g q y,
- 24. AR Pad Handheld AR Display LCD screen SpaceOrb Camera Peripheral awareness P h l
- 25. Support for Collaboration Virtual Viewpoint Visualization
- 26. Face to Face Collaboration Compare two person collaboration in: Face to Face, AR, Projection Display Task Urban design logic puzzle - Arrange 9 building to satisfy 10 rules in 7 minutes Subjects Within subjects study (counter-balanced) 12 pairs of college students
- 27. Face to Face Condition Moving Model Buildings
- 28. AR Condition Cards with AR Models SVGA AR Display (800x600) Video see-through AR g
- 29. Projection Condition Tracked Input Devices
- 31. Interface Conditions FtF AR Projection User Viewpoint p Independent Private Public Easy to change Independent Common Easy to change Difficult to change Limited FOV Interaction Two handed Two handed Mouse-based Natural object Tangible AR One-handed manipulation techniques Time-multiplexed Space-multiplexed Space-multiplexed
- 32. Hypothesis Collaboration with AR technology will produce behaviors that are more like natural face-to- face collaboration than from using a screen- screen based interface.
- 33. Metrics Subjective Evaluative survey after each condition Forced-choice survey after all conditions Post experiment interview Objective j Communication measures - Video transcription p
- 34. Measured Results Performance AR collaboration slower than FtF + Projection j Communication Pointing/Picking gesture behaviors same in AR as FtF Deictic speech patterns same in AR as FtF - Both significantly different than Projection condition g y j Subjective FtF easier to work together and understand Interaction in AR easier than Proj. and same as FtF
- 35. Deictic Expressions 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% FtF Proj AR Significant difference – ANOVA, F(2,33) = 5.77, P < 0.01 No difference between FtF and AR
- 36. Ease of Interaction Significant d ff S f difference Pick - F(2,69) = 37.8, P < 0.0001 Move - F(2,69) = 28.4, P < 0.0001
- 37. Interview Comments “AR’s biggest limit was lack of peripheral vision. The interaction was natural, it was just difficult to see. In the projection condition you could see everything but the interaction was tough” Face to Face Subjects focused on task space - gestures easy to see gaze difficult see, Projection display Interaction difficult (8/14) - not mouse-like, invasion of space AR display – “working solo together” Lack of peripheral cues = “tunnel vision (10/14 people) tunnel vision”
- 38. Face to Face Summary Collaboration is partly a Perceptual task AR reduces perceptual cues -> Impacts collaboration Tangible AR metaphor enhances ease of interaction Users felt that AR collaboration different from FtF But: measured speech and gesture behaviors in AR condition is more similar to FtF condition than in Projection display Thus we need to design AR interfaces that don’t reduce perceptual cues, while k h l keeping ease of interaction f
- 39. Collaborative AR AR Tennis Virtual tennis court Two user game Audio + haptic feedback Bluetooth messaging
- 40. Research Questions Does having an AR interface enhance the face to face gaming experience? g g p
- 41. AR Experience Conditions A: Face to Face AR B: Face to Face non-AR C: Non Face to Face Measures Survey questions Ranking
- 42. Survey Questions 1/ How easy was it to work with your partner? 2/ How easily did your partner work with you? y y p y 3/ How easy was it to be aware of what your partner was doing? 4/ How enjoyable was the game? Answered on a Likert scale from 1 to 7 1 = not very easy, 7 = very easy
- 43. Results Rankings User felt AR condition was much easier to see what their p partner was doing (Q3) g( ) Easier to work with partner in AR case (Q1) Easier for partner to work together in AR case (Q2) Face to Face AR ranked best
- 44. Observations and Conclusions Observations Tangible input proved to be very intuitive Users preferred audio over haptic cues as it provided greater awareness Players adapted behavior to interface Conclusions Collaborative AR enhances face to face awareness
- 46. 2008 - CNN
- 47. AR Conferencing Moves conferencing from the desktop to the workspace
- 48. Features Hardware SGI O2 Virtual i-O HMD head mounted camera Software live video shared whiteboard vision based registration/tracking
- 49. Pilot Study How does AR conferencing differ ? Task discussing images 12 pairs of subjects Conditions audio only ( ) y (AC) video conferencing (VC) mixed reality conferencing (MR)
- 51. Transcript Analysis Users speak most in Audio Only condition MR fewest words/min and interruptions/min More results needed
- 52. Presence and Communication Presence Rating (0-100) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Could tell when Partner was Concentrating 0 14 AC VC MR 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 AC VC MR
- 53. Subjective Comments Paid more attention to pictures Remote video provided peripheral cues In AR condition Difficult to see everything Remote user distracting Communication asymmetries
- 54. A Wearable Conferencing Space Features mobile video conferencing full size images spatial audio/visual cues interaction with real world dozens of users body-stabilized data
- 55. Initial Prototype Internet Telephony Spatial Audio/Visuals See-through HMD g Head Tracking Wireless Internet Wearable Computer Static Images
- 56. Software Architecture Multicast Groups Position Broadcasting P B d 10 kb/s per person Audio Broadcasting 172 kb/s per person Local sound spatialization DirectSound3D Graphics Interface DirectX/Direct3D
- 57. Pilot User Study Can MR spatial cues aid comprehension? Task recognize words in spoken phrases Conditions Number of speakers - 1,3,5 simultaneous speakers Spatial/Non Spatial Audio Visual/Non visual cues
- 58. Spatial Sound Spatial vs. Non Spatial Performance 5 4 Score 3 SS 2 NS 1 0 1 3 5 Num Speakers
- 59. Subjective Ratings Ease of Understanding 6 5 5) ating (1-5 4 SS 3 NS 2 Ra 1 0 1 3 5 Num Speakers
- 60. 3D Live: Virtual Viewpoint Generation
- 61. Virtual Viewpoint Generation Interpolate between real camera views to generate a virtual camera view
- 62. AR Conferencing Superimpose video of remote person over real world
- 64. Tangible Manipulation Using real paddle to move virtual user
- 65. AR Remote Conferencing Progression 2D to Spatial Cues to 3D S i lC Increasing realism (visual/audio cues)
- 67. The MagicBook Goal: A collaborative AR interface supporting transitions from reality to virtual reality Physical Components Real book Display Elements p y AR and VR content Interaction Metaphor Book pages hold virtual scenes
- 68. Milgram’s Reality-Virtuality continuum Mixed Reality Real Augmented Augmented Virtual Environment Reality (AR) Virtuality (AV) Environment Reality - Virtuality (RV) Continuum
- 69. Milgram’s Continuum (1994) Mixed Reality (MR) Reality Augmented Augmented Virtuality y (Tangible Reality (AR) Virtuality (AV) (Virtual Interfaces) Reality) Central Hypothesis yp The next generation of interfaces will support transitions along the Reality-Virtuality continuum
- 70. Transitions Interfaces of the future will need to support transitions along the RV continuum Augmented Reality is preferred for: co-located collaboration Immersive Virtual Reality is preferred for: experiencing world immersively (egocentric) sharing views remote c llab rati n rem te collaboration
- 72. Features Seamless transition between Reality and Virtuality Reliance on real d R li l decreases as virtual increases i li Supports egocentric and exocentric views User can pick appropriate view Computer becomes invisible Consistent interface metaphors Virtual content seems real Supports collaboration
- 73. Collaboration Collaboration on multiple levels: Physical Object y j AR Object Immersive Virtual Space Egocentric + exocentric collaboration multiple multi-scale users p Independent Views Privacy, role division, scalability
- 74. Technology Reality No technology Augmented Reality Camera – tracking Switch – fly in Virtual Reality Compass – tracking Press pad – move Switch – fly out
- 76. Education
- 78. Hybrid User Inerfaces Goal: To G l T incorporate AR into normal meeting l environment Physical Components Real props Display El Di l Elements t 2D and 3D (AR) displays Interaction Metaphor Use multiple tools – each relevant for the task
- 79. Hybrid User Interfaces 1 2 3 4 PERSONAL TABLETOP WHITEBOARD MULTIGROUP Private Display Private Display Private Display Private Display Group Display Public Display Group Display Public Display
- 80. Bridging Space (1) Office of the Future [Raskar98] office environment augmented with embedded front projection 3D video conferencing
- 81. Bridging Space (2) Emmie [Butz99] Shared virtual “ether“ metaphor Incorporate existing standard applications
- 82. Bridging S B id i Space (3) Studierstube (V2.0) [Schmalstieg2000] Similar multi-display AR Mixed view applications Example: Storyboard design
- 83. MagicMeeting [Regenbrecht 2002] Hybrid Interface for Face to Face Collaboration AR view, Projection Screen, Desktop, PDA j p Tangible Interaction Physical manipulators
- 84. Tangible Interactions Cake Platter Rotation Real Props – Cli i Pl R lP Clipping Plane, Obj t Li hti Object Lighting
- 85. Conclusions
- 86. Lessons Learned Face to face collaboration AR preferred over immersive VR f d i i AR facilitates seamless/natural communication Remote C ll b ti R t Collaboration AR spatial cues can enhance communication AR conferencing improves video conferencing f i i id f i Many possible confounding factors
- 87. Future Work Wearable collaborative AR system opportunistic collaboration just in time training Communication Asymmetries interface, expertise, roles Usability Studies y multi-user AR systems communication tasks