Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 443–453 | Cite as

Creating different learning experiences: assessment of usability factors in an interactive three-dimensional holographic projection system for experiential learning

  • Hsinfu HuangEmail author
  • Chin-wei Chen
Long Paper


Innovative interfaces for the display and control of information constitute an essential topic for interactive experiential learning. In this study, an interactive three-dimensional (3D) holographic projection system was developed. This system was used in a physiology-based experiential learning experiment. Learners used noncontact somatosensory methods to manipulate 3D learning objects (targets) and learned the characteristics of physiological structures in a 3D holographic projection environment. The learners did not require a physical button interface. Embodied gesture recognition was implemented in this interactive system. Furthermore, this study explored the system’s usability factors to improve the human–computer interaction and availability of the system. A total of 60 participants (30 female and 30 male) participated in a usability experiment for this 3D interactive holographic projection learning system. The participants were required to complete an interactive experiential learning task concerning the physiological structures of human organs. At the end of the task, each participant was asked to complete a questionnaire featuring 5-point Likert scales. Four crucial system usability factors were proposed through principal component analysis. These factors included ‘labelling’, ‘continuity’, ‘backlash’, and ‘ambiences’. Gender had no significant effect on any of these factors (p > 0.05). Further, the learner’s experiential learning characteristics and human–computer interaction modality are described based on the results of the usability study.


Three-dimensional holographic projection Interactive experiential learning Principal component analysis Human–computer interaction modality 



This study was partially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, ROC under Grant No. 107-2410-H-224 -024 -MY2 MOST.


  1. 1.
    Alisi, T.M., Del Bimbo, A., Valli, A.: Natural interfaces to enhance visitors’ experiences. IEEE MultiMed. 12, 80–85 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anton, D., Kurillo, G., Bajcsy, R.: User experience and interaction performance in 2D/3D telecollaboration. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 82, 77–88 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brancati, N., Caggianese, G., Frucci, M., Gallo, L., Neroni, P.: Experiencing touchless interaction with augmented content on wearable head-mounted displays in cultural heritage applications. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 21(2), 203–217 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buckley, E.: Holographic projector using one lens. Opt. Lett. 35, 3399–3401 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caggianese, G., Gallo, L., Neroni, P.: Evaluation of spatial interaction techniques for virtual heritage applications: a case study of an interactive holographic projection. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 81, 516–527 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choe, K., Kang, Y., Seo, B.S., Yang, B.: Experiences of learning flow among Korean adolescents. Learn. Individ. Differ. 39, 180–185 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deng, L., Turner, D.E., Gehling, R., Prince, B.: User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 19(1), 60–75 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G.D., Beale, R.: Human–computer interaction. Pearson, Prentice Hall (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ducin, I., Shimobaba, T., Makowski, M., Kakarenko, K., Kowalczyk, A., Suszek, J., Bieda, M., Kolodziejczyk, A., Sypek, M.: Holographic projection of images with step-less zoom and noise suppression by pixel separation. Opt. Commun. 340, 131–135 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edirisingha, P., Nie, M., Pluciennik, M., Young, R.: Socialisation for learning at a distance in a 3-D multi-user virtual environment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 40(3), 458–479 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Finch, D., Peacock, M., Lazdowski, D., Hwang, M.: Managing emotions: a case study exploring the relationship between experiential learning, emotions, and student performance. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 13, 23–36 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hwang, G.J., Wu, P. H., Chen, C. C., Tu, N. T.: Effects of the mobile competitive game approach on students’ learning attitudes and flow experience in field trips. In: International Conference of Educational Innovation Through Technology, pp. 3–8, (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaiser, H.F.: An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 30, 1–14 (1974)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaye, L.K.: Exploring flow experiences in cooperative digital gaming contexts. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 286–291 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu, G.Z.: Innovating research topics in learning technology: where are the new blue oceans? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 39, 738–747 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mishra, S.: Holographic the future of medicine—from star wars to clinical imaging. Indian Heart J. 69, 566–567 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paiva, A.: Affective Interactions: Towards a New Generation of Computer Interfaces. Springer, Berlin (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pallud, J.: Impact of interactive technologies on stimulating learning experiences in a museum. Inf. Manag. 54, 465–478 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pang, H., Cao, A., Wang, J., Zhang, M.D.: Improvement of image quality of holographic projection on tilted plane using iterative algorithm. Opt. Commun. 405, 323–328 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petersen, N., Stricker, D.: Cognitive augmented reality. Comput. Graph. 53, 82–91 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanders, M.M., McCormick, E.J.: Human Factors in Engineering & Design, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, NY (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shin, D.H.: The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telemat. Inform. 34, 1826–1836 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shneiderman, B., Plasisant, C.: Designing the User Interface. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stone, D., Jarrett, C., Woodroffe, M., Minocha, S.: User Interface Design and Evaluation. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Terzić, K., Hansard, M.: Methods for reducing visual discomfort in stereoscopic 3D: a review. Signal Process. Image Commun. 47, 402–416 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yan, Y., Davison, R.M., Mo, C.: Employee creativity formation: the roles of knowledge seeking, knowledge contributing and flow experience in Web 2.0 virtual communities. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(5), 1923–1932 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignNational Yunlin University of Science and TechnologyDouliouTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations