Advertisement

Evaluating the Impact of a Virtual Reality Application in Raising Awareness Toward the Destruction of Cultural Heritage Sites

  • Christos HadjipanayiEmail author
  • Eleni Demitriadou
  • Haris Frangou
  • Maria Papageorgiou
  • Christina Zavlanou
  • Andreas Lanitis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11197)

Abstract

The aim of our work is to investigate the applicability of Virtual Reality (VR) in raising awareness of users in relation to the destruction of important monuments. The proposed methodology involves the exposure of users to three virtual environments displaying the original state of a monument, the current state and the predicted future state of the same monument in the case that the monument is not maintained. The exposure to the three states of the same building allows the user to experience the “glorious days” of a monument and compare them to the current and future states in an attempt to realize the level of destruction that could occur to the building if the monument is not maintained properly. As part of a pilot case study, a number of volunteers were asked to navigate in virtual environments depicting the three chronological states of a landmark building. Preliminary results indicate a significant increase of the intensity of negative emotions of the users, indicating the applicability of VR in alerting the society toward the destruction of important monuments.

Keywords

Virtual reality Cultural heritage Visualization techniques 

References

  1. 1.
    Conn, C., Lanier, J., Minsky, M., Fisher, S., Druin, A.: Virtual environments and interactivity: windows to the future. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 23(5), 7–18 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coburn, J.Q., Freeman, I., Salmon, J.L.: A review of the capabilities of current low-cost virtual reality technology and its potential to enhance the design process. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 17(3), 031013 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang, H.M., Rauch, U., Liaw, S.S.: Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: based on a constructivist approach. Comput. Educ. 55(3), 1171–1182 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sanchez-Vives, M.V., Slater, M.: From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6(4), 1–34 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Muhanna, M.A.: Virtual reality and the CAVE: Taxonomy, interaction challenges and research directions. J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 27(3), 344–361 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diemer, J., Alpers, G.W., Peperkorn, H.M., Shiban, Y., Mühlberger, A.: The impact of perception and presence on emotional reactions: a review of research in virtual reality. Front. Psychol. 6(26), 1–9 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christofi, M., et al.: A tour in the archaeological site of Choirokoitia using virtual reality: a learning performance and interest generation assessment. In: Ioannides, M., Martins, J., Žarnić, R., Lim, V. (eds.) Advances in Digital Cultural Heritage. LNCS, vol. 10754, pp. 208–217. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75789-6_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Behr, J., et al.: The Digital Cathedral of Siena–Innovative concepts for interactive and immersive presentation of cultural heritage sites, pp. 57–71 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kontogianni, G., Georgopoulos, A., Saraga, N., Alexandraki, E., Tsogka, K.: 3D virtual reconstruction of the Middle Stoa in the Athens Ancient Agora. ISPRS-Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 40, 125–131 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guidi, G., Russo, M.: Diachronic 3D reconstruction for lost cultural heritage. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote. Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 38(W16), 371–376 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loizides, F., El Kater, A., Terlikas, C., Lanitis, A., Michael, D.: Presenting cypriot cultural heritage in virtual reality: a user evaluation. In: Ioannides, M., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Fink, E., Žarnić, R., Yen, A.-Y., Quak, E. (eds.) EuroMed 2014. LNCS, vol. 8740, pp. 572–579. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13695-0_57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andreou, A.: Berengaria, The Hotel of the Kings. iWrite, Nicosia (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goradia, I., Doshi, J., Kurup, L.: A review paper on oculus rift & project morpheus. Int. J. Curr. Eng. Technol. 4(5), 3196–3200 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Babbie, E.: The Practice of Social Research, 13th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papanastasiou, K., Papanastasiou, E.: Educational Research Methodology, 1st edn. Private, Nicosia (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barbat, A.H., Moya, F.Y., Canas, J.: Damage scenarios simulation for seismic risk assessment in urban zones. Earthq. Spectra 12(3), 371–394 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baka, E., Stavroulia, K.E., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Lanitis, A.: An EEG-based evaluation for comparing the sense of presence between virtual and physical environments. In: Proceedings of Computer Graphics International, pp. 107–116 (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Multimedia and Graphic ArtsCyprus University of TechnologyLimassolCyprus
  2. 2.Visual Media Computing Research Lab, Department of Multimedia and Graphic ArtsCyprus University of TechnologyLimassolCyprus
  3. 3.Research Centre on Interactive Media Smart Systems and Emerging TechnologiesLimassolCyprus

Personalised recommendations