Principles of Dynamic Display Aiding Presence in Mixed Reality Space Design

  • Inkyung Choi
  • Jihyun Lee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8525)

Abstract

In this study, presence principles were developed for dynamic display design and evaluation of dynamic display for designing mixed reality space. This is a research to classify the indicators collected through the researches about the existing measurement and evaluation of the existence felling and information suggestion methods in mixed reality as the evaluation principles of the displays and multimodal’s interfaces that construct the mixed reality. Additionally, by constructing QFD evaluation frame based on this presence principles and evaluating the interface that composes the mixed reality, research results were tried to be reflected in the future works.

Keywords

Spatial Presence Dynamic Display Mixed Reality Presence Principles 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Milgram, P., Herman, C.: A taxonomy of real and virtual world display integration. In: Mixed reality: Merging real and virtual worlds, pp. 5–30 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slater, M., Steed, A.: A virtual presence counter. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 9(5), 413–434 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., Regenbrecht, H.: The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10(3), 266–281 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schaik, P.V., Turnbull, T., Wersch, A.V., Drummond, S.: Presence within a mixed reality environment. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7(5), 540–552 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tönnis, M., Plecher, D.A., Klinker, G.: Representing information–Classifying the Augmented Reality presentation space. Computers & Graphics 37(8), 997–1011 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kersten-Oertel, M., Jannin, P., Collins, D.L.: The state of the art of visualization in mixed reality image guided surgery. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics 37(2), 98–112 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ko, S.M., Chang, W.S., Ji, Y.G.: Usability principles for augmented reality applications in a smartphone environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 29(8), 501–515 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Follmer, S., Leithinger, D., Ishii, A.O.A.H.H.: inFORM: Dynamic physical affordances and constraints through shape and object actuation. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 417–426 (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heeter, C.: Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1(2), 262–271 (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Slater, M., Usoh, M., Steed, A.: Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence 3(2), 130–144 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steuer, J.: Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication 42(4), 73–93 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., Regenbrecht, H.: The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10(3), 266–281 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Inkyung Choi
    • 1
  • Jihyun Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Descart Lab., Graduate School of Culture TechnologyKAISTRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations