Advertisement

Virtual Reality

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 103–118 | Cite as

Kinesthetic interactions in museums: conveying cultural heritage by making use of ancient tools and (re-) constructing artworks

  • Panayiotis Koutsabasis
  • Spyros Vosinakis
S.I. : VR and AR Serious Games

Abstract

Kinesthetic interactions allow users to interact with 3D applications through their body movements and hand gestures. When kinesthetic applications are introduced in museums and heritage institutions, they add embodiment to visitor experience. An appropriate fit for kinesthetic technology in museums rests on visitors engaging in purposeful body movements and hand gestures that convey meanings about both intangible and tangible heritage. This paper presents the design, development and evaluation of a kinesthetic application of sculpturing Cycladic figurines, which places the user at the role of an ancient craftsman who creates a figurine with bare-hand movements (translated by Leap Motion to respective sculpting actions) in a simplified virtual environment. The Cycladic sculpture application has been evaluated in laboratory and field testing (as part of a wider educational activity in the museum) with positive results on usability, fun and learning. We identify several benefits as well as challenges of designing kinesthetic interactions in museums and we report on design issues that need to be taken into account in similar applications.

Keywords

Cultural heritage Digital heritage Kinesthetic interaction Cycladic figurine User experience Usability testing Field study Leap Motion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Nikolas Papadimitriou curator of Antiquities at the Museum of Cycladic Art for the coordination of the event ‘Marble Yesterday and Today,’ as well as Yiannis Papadatos, Nondas Verieris and all other participants for the fruitful discussions onto the value of kinesthetic interactive applications for conveying tangible and intangible heritage.

References

  1. Anderson EF, McLoughlin L, Liarokapis F, Peters C, Petridis P, de Freitas S (2010) Developing serious games for cultural heritage: a state-of-the-art review. Virtual Real 14(4):255–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton AJ, Goeser C (2013) Transforming the art museum experience: gallery one. museums and the web. http://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/transforming-the-art-museum-experience-gallery-one-2/
  3. Correia N, Romão T, Ricardo A et al (2014) Design of an interactive experience with medieval illuminations: a journey into the beauty and meaning of medieval Portuguese manuscripts. J Comput Cult Herit (JOCCH) 7(2):13Google Scholar
  4. Csikszentmihalyi M, Hermanson K (1995) Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn? In: Falk JH, Dierking LD (eds) Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda, American Association of Museums, Washington, DC, pp. 67–77Google Scholar
  5. De Paolis LT, Aloisio G, Celentano MG, Oliva L, Vecchio P (2011) Experiencing a town of the Middle Ages: an application for the edutainment in cultural heritage. In: 2011 IEEE 3rd international conference on communication software and networks (ICCSN). pp 169–174. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  6. England D (2011) Whole body interaction: An introduction. In: Whole Body Interaction Springer, London, pp. 1-5Google Scholar
  7. Fanini B, d’Annibale E, Demetrescu E, Ferdani D, Pagano A (2015) Engaging and shared gesture-based interaction for museums the case study of K2R international expo in Rome. In: 2015 Digital heritage, vol 1, pp 263–270. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  8. Fogtmann MH, Fritsch J, Kortbek KJ (2008) Kinesthetic interaction: revealing the bodily potential in interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 20th Australasian conference on computer-human interaction: designing for habitus and habitat, pp 89–96. ACMGoogle Scholar
  9. Guna J, Jakus G, Pogačnik M, Tomažič S, Sodnik J (2014) An analysis of the precision and reliability of the leap motion sensor and its suitability for static and dynamic tracking. Sensors 14(2):3702–3720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gunn C (2006) Collaborative virtual sculpting with haptic feedback. Virtual Real 10(2):73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hein GE (2002) Learning in the museum. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Hernández-Ibáñez LA, Barneche-Naya V, Mihura-López R (2016) Natural interaction and movement paradigms. A comparison of usability for a kinect enabled museum installation. In: International conference on learning and collaboration technologies, Springer, Berlin, pp 145–155Google Scholar
  13. Hoffman HG, Hollander A, Schroder K, Rousseau S, Furness T (1998) Physically touching and tasting virtual objects enhances the realism of virtual experiences. Virtual Real 3(4):226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hsu HMJ (2011) The potential of kinect in education. Int J Inf Educ Technol 1(5):365Google Scholar
  15. Hunicke R, LeBlanc M, Zubek R (2004) MDA: a formal approach to game design and game research. In: Proceedings of the AAAI workshop on challenges in game AIGoogle Scholar
  16. Koutsabasis P, Domouzis C (2016) Mid-air browsing and selection in image collections. In: International working conference on advanced visual interfaces (AVI) 2016. ACMGoogle Scholar
  17. Koutsabasis P, Vosinakis S (2016) Adult and children user experience with leap motion in digital heritage: the Cycladic sculpture application. In: Euro-mediterranean conference. Springer, Berlin, pp 350–361Google Scholar
  18. Leap Motion App Store. https://apps.leapmotion.com/
  19. Markopoulos P, Read JC, MacFarlane S, Hoysniemi J (2008) Evaluating children’s interactive products: principles and practices for interaction designers. Morgan Kaufmann, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Markussen A, Jakobsen MR, Hornbæk K (2013) Selection-based mid-air text entry on large displays. IFIP conference on human–computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 401–418Google Scholar
  21. McDonnell K, Qin H, Wlodarczyk R (2001) Virtual clay: a real-time sculpting system with haptic toolkits. In: Proceedings of the 2001 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics. ACMGoogle Scholar
  22. Mortara M, Catalano CE, Bellotti F, Fiucci G, Houry-Panchetti M, Petridis P (2014) Learning cultural heritage by serious games. J Cult Herit 15(3):318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nancel M, Wagner J, Pietriga E, Chapuis O, Mackay W (2011) Mid-air pan-and-zoom on wall-sized displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 177–186. ACMGoogle Scholar
  24. Oustinoff E (1987) The Early Cycladic sculptor: materials and methods. In: Getz-Preziosi P (ed) Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections. Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, pp 90–102Google Scholar
  25. Papadatos Y, Venieris E (2016) An experimental approach to the manufacture of Cycladic-type figurines with folded arms: preliminary observations. In: Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 483–490Google Scholar
  26. Papadimitriou N (2015) How were they created? Materials and techniques of crafting ancient artefacts. A publication of the Museum of Cycladic Art. ISBN: 978-618-5060-12-1 (In Greek)Google Scholar
  27. Pescarin S, Pietroni E, Rescic L, Wallergård M, Omar K, Rufa C (2013) NICH: a preliminary theoretical study on Natural Interaction applied to Cultural Heritage contexts. In: Digital heritage international congress 2013, vol 1, pp 355–362. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  28. Pietroni E, Adami A (2014) Interacting with virtual reconstructions in museums: the Etruscanning Project. J Comput Cult Herit 7(2):9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prazina I, Balic K, Prses K, Rizvic S, Okanovic V (2016) Interaction with virtual objects in a natural way. In: 39th international convention on information and communication technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO) 2016, Opatija, Croatia, May 30–June 3, 2016. IEEE, pp 358–361Google Scholar
  30. Ramani K, Lee Jr K, Jasti R (2014) zPots: a virtual pottery experience with spatial interactions using the leap motion device. In: CHI’14 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACMGoogle Scholar
  31. Read JC (2008) Validating the Fun Toolkit: an instrument for measuring children’s opinions of technology. Cogn Technol Work 10(2):119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Renner RS, Velichkovsky BM, Helmert JR (2013) The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments-a review. ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 46(2):23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robertson S, Jones B, O’Quinn T, Presti P, Wilson J, Gandy M (2009) Multiuser collaborative exploration of immersive photorealistic virtual environments in public spaces. International conference on virtual and mixed reality. Springer, Berlin, pp 235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sederberg T, Parry S (1986) Free-form deformation of solid geometric models. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 20(4):151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sheng J, Balakrishnan R, Singh K (2006) An interface for virtual 3D sculpting via physical proxy. GRAPHITE 6Google Scholar
  36. Van Eck W, Kolstee Y (2012) The augmented painting: playful interaction with multi-spectral images. In: 2012 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality-arts, media, and humanities (ISMAR-AMH), pp 65–69. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  37. Von Hardenberg C, Bérard F (2001) Bare-hand human–computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2001 workshop on perceptive user interfaces. pp 1–8. ACMGoogle Scholar
  38. Vosinakis S, Xenakis I (2011) A virtual world installation in an art exhibition: providing a shared interaction space for local and remote visitors. In: Rethinking technology in Museums 2011Google Scholar
  39. Vosinakis S, Koutsabasis P, Makris D, Sagia E (2016) A kinesthetic approach to digital heritage using leap motion: the Cycladic sculpture application. In: 8th International conference on games and virtual worlds for serious applications (VS-GAMES), Barcelona. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang CS, Chiang DJ, Wei YC (2013) Intuitional 3D museum navigation system using Kinect. Information technology convergence. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wong J, Lau R, Ma L (2000) Virtual 3d sculpting. J Vis Comput Anim 11(3):155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wyvill G, Kunii TL (1985) A functional model for constructive solid geometry. Vis Comput 1(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Product and Systems Design Engineering, Interactive Systems Design LabUniversity of the AegeanErmoupolisGreece

Personalised recommendations