Towards Efficient Mobile Augmented Reality in Indoor Environments

  • Mohammad AlahmadiEmail author
  • Jie Yang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10970)


Augmented reality allows users to visualize annotations, videos, and images overlaid on physical objects through the use of a camera. However, the high computational processing cost of matching an image seen through a camera with that in an enormous database of images makes it daunting to use the concept of augmented reality on a smartphone. As matching an image with another takes time, some researchers leverage Global Positioning System (GPS) for localizing outdoor objects. Tagging images with GPS location reduces the number of images that are required to find a match which improves the overall efficiency. Unfortunately, this approach is not suitable for indoor environment as GPS does not work in indoor environments. To address this problem, we propose a system for mobile augmented reality (MAR) in indoor environments. By leveraging the already available Wi-Fi infrastructure, we estimate the location of the users inside a building to narrow down the search space. Furthermore, we utilize the smartphone motion sensors such as accelerometers and magnetometers to detect the phone’s direction towards an object, and also to capture the inclination degree of the smartphone to further reduce the search domain for an object. We deployed the system in a building at Florida State University. We tested our proposal and found that using the system we decreased the matching time significantly. Due to refining the search domain of the annotated image database, MAR uses the object recognition algorithm more efficiently and decreases the matching time from 2.8 s to just 17 ms with a total of 200 annotated images.


Augmented reality Compass Accelerometer Object recognition RSS 


  1. 1.
    Takacs, G., Chandrasekhar, V., Gelfand, N., Xiong, Y., Chen, W.C., Bismpigiannis, T., Grzeszczuk, R., Pulli, K., Girod, B.: Outdoors augmented reality on mobile phone using loxel-based visual feature organization. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on Multimedia Information Retrieval, pp. 427–434. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Debnath, H., Borcea, C.: TagPix: automatic real-time landscape photo tagging for smartphones. In: 2013 International Conference on MOBILe Wireless MiddleWARE, Operating Systems and Applications (Mobilware), pp. 176–184. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Qin, C., Bao, X., Roy Choudhury, R., Nelakuditi, S.: TagSense: a smartphone-based approach to automatic image tagging. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, pp. 1–14. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jain, P., Manweiler, J., Roy Choudhury, R.: Overlay: practical mobile augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, pp. 331–344. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azuma, R.T.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6(4), 355–385 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Piekarski, W., Thomas, B.: ARQuake: the outdoor augmented reality gaming system. Commun. ACM 45(1), 36–38 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yilmaz, R.M., Kucuk, S., Goktas, Y.: Are augmented reality picture books magic or real for preschool children aged five to six? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 48(3), 824–841 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yohan, S.J., Julier, S., Baillot, Y., Lanzagorta, M., Brown, D., Rosenblum, L.: BARS: battlefield augmented reality system. In: NATO Symposium on Information Processing Techniques for Military Systems, pp. 9–11Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arth, C., Schmalstieg, D.: Challenges of Large-Scale Augmented Reality on Smartphones, pp. 1–4. Graz University of Technology, Graz (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gotow, J.B., Zienkiewicz, K., White, J., Schmidt, D.C.: Addressing challenges with augmented reality applications on smartphones. In: Cai, Y., Magedanz, T., Li, M., Xia, J., Giannelli, C. (eds.) MOBILWARE 2010. LNICST, vol. 48, pp. 129–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ma, R., Guo, Q., Hu, C., Xue, J.: An improved wifi indoor positioning algorithm by weighted fusion. Sensors 15(9), 21824–21843 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quan, M., Navarro, E., Peuker, B.: Wi-Fi localization using RSSI fingerprinting (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Husen, M.N., Lee, S.: Indoor human localization with orientation using WiFi fingerprinting. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication, p. 109. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stook, J.: Planning an indoor navigation service for a smartphone with Wi-Fi fingerprinting localization. Master’s thesis (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roy, N., Wang, H., Roy Choudhury, R.: I am a smartphone and i can tell my user’s walking direction. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, pp. 329–342. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shu, Y., Shin, K.G., He, T., Chen, J.: Last-mile navigation using smartphones. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 512–524. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang, J., Chen, Y.: Indoor localization using improved RSS-based lateration methods. In: Global Telecommunications Conference, GLOBECOM 2009, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang, J., Chen, Y., Martin, R.P., Trappe, W., Gruteser, M.: On the performance of wireless indoor localization using received signal strength. In: Handbook of Position Location: Theory, Practice, and Advances, pp. 395–424 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bahl, P., Padmanabhan, V.N.: Radar: an in-building RF-based user location and tracking system. In: Proceedings of Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, INFOCOM 2000, vol. 2, pp. 775–784. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pedley, M.: Tilt sensing using a three-axis accelerometer. Freescale semiconductor application note, pp. 1–22 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Akherfi, K., Gerndt, M., Harroud, H.: Mobile cloud computing for computation offloading: issues and challenges. Appl. Comput. Inform. 14, 1–16 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lowe, D.G.: Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. In: The Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, vol. 2, pp. 1150–1157. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bay, H., Tuytelaars, T., Van Gool, L.: SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features. In: Leonardis, A., Bischof, H., Pinz, A. (eds.) ECCV 2006. LNCS, vol. 3951, pp. 404–417. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leutenegger, S., Chli, M., Siegwart, R.Y.: BRISK: binary Robust invariant scalable keypoints. In: 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2548–2555Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lv, Q., Josephson, W., Wang, Z., Charikar, M., Li, K.: Efficient indexing for high-dimensional similarity search. In: 33rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 950–961 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petrosino, A.: Progress in Image Analysis and Processing, ICIAP 2013, Naples, Italy, 9–13 September 2013, Proceedings, vol. 8156. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, F.-F., Andreetto, M., Ranzato, M.A., Perona, P.: Caltech 101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations