Interaction design in Augmented Reality on the smartphone

Lv, Chaohui; Yang, Xingyun; Yu, Jiayao

doi:10.1109/cisp-bmei.2016.7852920

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 2 lists the examples of sensory dimensions used in the extant literature. Based on prior research on human-computer interaction, especially in the fields related to computational intelligence, the widely adopted sensory interactions in smartphone-based AR systems include visual, haptic and movement sensations (Lv et al, 2016). Accordingly, in this study, we use image, motion and touchscreen interactions to reflect visual-, kinesthetic-and haptic-based sensation stimulations, respectively (e.g.…”

Section: Sensory Dimensions Of Ar Interaction Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…clothes) would appear on oneself II3: I was able to see how it looks when I wear the virtual objects (i.e. clothes) Motion interaction (Lv et al, 2016;Nizam et al, 2018) MI1: I can control the directions in virtual world by my movement MI2: I can place the angles of virtual objects with real-time movement MI3: I can point the virtual objects at specific direction by my movement Touchscreen interaction (Heller et al, 2019;Kinzinger et al, 2022) TI1: I can select the virtual objects using my hands/fingers TI2: I can move the virtual objects using my hands/fingers TI3: I can use my hands/fingers to interact with virtual products Multisensory experience (Gao and Lan, 2020) ME1: This online shopping environment mobilizes many of my senses ME2: This online shopping environment provides me with a lot of sensory stimulation ME3: This online shopping environment has few sensory elements Information overload (Chen et al, 2009;Ding et al, 2017) IO1: I often find that the information on online shopping platforms is too much and over-whelming IO2: There was too much information about the certain product on this e-store so that I was burdened in handling it IO3: I often find that there are so many choices that I don't want to make the efforts to compare and choose IO4: Because of the plenty information on this e-store, I felt difficult in acquiring all of this information Spatial presence (Smink et al, 2020) SP1: was similar to experiencing the products in reality SP2: felt like it was in reality SP3: was as realistic to me as in the real world Product uncertainty (Liu et al, 2021) PU1: I feel uncertain that I have fully understood everything I need to know about the product I have chosen PU2: I am uncertain that the product I have chosen will be the same as I expect it to be PU3: I feel that purchasing the products involves a high degree of uncertainty about the actual quality Intention to purchase (Fenko et al, 2016) After using the AR app, the chance that I will buy product from this AR app is IP1: Uncertain/certain IP2: Unlikely/likely IP3: Improbable/probable Table A1. Measurement…”

Section: Appendixmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Augmented reality in the metaverse market: the role of multimodal sensory interaction

Chen,

Zhang,

Chu

et al. 2023

INTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeIn the growing information systems (IS) literature on metaverse, augmented reality (AR) technology is regarded as a cornerstone of the metaverse which enables interaction services. Interaction has been identified as a core technology characteristic of metaverse shopping environments. Based on previous human–technology interaction research, the authors further explicate interaction to be multimodal sensory. The purpose of this study is thus to better understand the unique nature of interaction in AR technology and highlight the technology's benefits for shopping in metaverse spaces.Design/methodology/approachAn experiment has been conducted to empirically examine the authors' research model. The authors use the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to analyze the collected data.FindingsThis study conceptualizes image, motion and touchscreen interactions as the three dimensions of multimodal sensory interaction, which can reflect visual-, kinesthetic- and haptic-based sensation stimulation. The authors' findings show that multimodal sensory interaction of AR activates consumers' intention to purchase via a psychological process. To delineate this psychological process, the authors use feelings-as-information theory to posit that experiential factors can influence cognitive factors. More specifically, multimodal sensory interaction is shown to increase multisensory experience and spatial presence, which can effectively reduce product uncertainty and information overload. The two outcomes have been considered to be key issues in online shopping environments.Originality/valueThis study is one of the first ones that shed light on the multimodal sensory peculiarity of AR interactions in the extant IS literature. The authors further highlight the benefits of AR in addressing major online shopping concerns about product uncertainty and information overload, which are largely overlooked by prior research. This study uses feelings-as-information theory to explain the impacts of AR interactions, which reveal the essential role of the experiential process in sensory-enabling technologies. This study enriches the existing theoretical frameworks that mostly focus on the cognitive process. The authors' findings about AR interactions provide noteworthy guidelines for the design of metaverse environments and extend the authors' understanding of how the metaverse may bring benefits beyond traditional online shopping settings.

show abstract

Section: Sensory Dimensions Of Ar Interaction Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%