Manipulating 3D Anatomic Models in Augmented Reality: Comparing a Hands-Free Approach and a Manual Approach

Sadri, Shirin; Kohen, Shalva; Elvezio, Carmine; Sun, Shen-Su; Grinshpoon, Alon; Loeb, G.; Basu, Naomi; Feiner, Steven

doi:10.1109/ismar.2019.00-21

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a whole, for headworn displays, head was found to be beneficial for pointing tasks [27], hand for object manipulation [74], and speech for abstract tasks and commands [91]. For handheld devices, a plausible mapping for head pointing interactions on headworn displays is raycasting [97], or rod techniques [81].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, 10 papers concerning head or speech input discussed how systems could adapt for hands-free interaction approaches. This predominantly included applications for healthcare or maintenance [8,45,68,74,86], where users are generally required to operate their hands to complete real-world tasks, and for text entry, where it may be inconvenient to use an external controller, or look down to type on a smartphone [48,95].…”

Section: Input Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 papers were considered only relevant to a specific implementation, whereas 12 explored fundamental findings and went on to apply them to a final application. Notable areas of contribution surround selection [12,26,30], object manipulation [20,63,90], text entry [48,95], game interaction [14,82], character control and animation [3,96], human-human [86] and human-robot collaboration [31,43], map exploration [76], UI (user interface) and menu-based interaction [8,67], Medical/Healthcare [68,74], interactive learning [9,57] and AR assistants [51,99]. Some studies could be classified into more than one of these categories, such as the work of Sadri et al [74], which focuses on anatomic model manipulation for medical applications.…”

Section: Type Of Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As well as this, Yu et al [98] exemplifies how head input can be used to navigate content in the depth dimension, which could be beneficial for users with impairments, or where users are required to employ their hands for external tasks [48,74], as well as when interacting in public contexts [30].…”

Section: General Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Review of Interaction Techniques for Immersive Environments

Spittle

Frutos-Pascual

Creed

et al. 2023

IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent proliferation of immersive technology has led to the rapid adoption of consumer-ready hardware for Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR). While this increase has resulted in a variety of platforms that can offer a richer interactive experience, the advances in technology bring more variability in display types, interaction sensors and use cases. This provides a spectrum of device-specific interaction possibilities, with each offering a tailor-made solution for delivering immersive experiences to users, but often with an inherent lack of standardisation across devices and applications. To address this, a systematic review and an evaluation of explicit, task-based interaction methods in immersive environments are presented in this paper. A corpus of papers published between 2013 and 2020 is reviewed to thoroughly explore state-of-the-art user studies, which investigate input methods and their implementation for immersive interaction tasks (pointing, selection, translation, rotation, scale, viewport, menu-based and abstract). Focus is given to how input methods have been applied within the spectrum of immersive technology (AR, VR, XR). This is achieved by categorising findings based on display type, input method, study type, use case and task. Results illustrate key trends surrounding the benefits and limitations of each interaction technique and highlight the gaps in current research. The review provides a foundation for understanding the current and future directions for interaction studies in immersive environments, which, at this pivotal point in XR technology adoption, provides routes forward for achieving more valuable, intuitive and natural interactive experiences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Input Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Type Of Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Review of Interaction Techniques for Immersive Environments

Spittle

Frutos-Pascual

Creed

et al. 2023

IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They observed a superiority of a ray casting technique over a point cursor in dense target setup. With AR HMDs, recent studies favor using the head rather than the hand for pointing [24,33,36]. The head appears to be more accurate and it does not suffer from the gorilla arm effect [33].…”

Section: Interacting Within Virtual Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

GyroSuite

Thibault

Troccaz

Rochet-Capellan

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handheld Perspective-Corrected Displays (HPCDs) are physical objects that have a notable volume and that display a virtual 3D scene on their entire surface. Being handheld, they create the illusion of holding the scene in a physical container (the display). This has strong benefits for the intuitiveness of 3D interaction: manipulating objects of the virtual scene amounts to physical manipulations of the display. HPCDs have been limited so far to technical demonstrators and experimental tools to assess their merits. However, they show great potential as interactive systems for actual 3D applications. This requires that novel interactions be created to go beyond object manipulation and to offer general-purpose services such as menu command selection and continuous parameter control.Working with a two-handed spherical HPCD, we report on the design and informal evaluations of various interaction techniques for distant object selection, scene scaling, menu interaction and continuous parameter control. In particular, our design leverages the efficient two-handed control of the rotations of the display. We demonstrate how some of these techniques can be assemble in a self-contained anatomy learning application. Novice participants used the application in a qualitative user experiment. Most participants used the application effortlessly without any training or explanations.

show abstract

An empirical evaluation of two natural hand interaction systems in augmented reality

Serrano

Morillo

Casas

et al. 2022

Multimed Tools Appl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-computer interaction based on hand gesture tracking is not uncommon in Augmented Reality. In fact, the most recent optical Augmented Reality devices include this type of natural interaction. However, due to hardware and system limitations, these devices, more often than not, settle for semi-natural interaction techniques, which may not always be appropriate for some of the tasks needed in Augmented Reality applications. For this reason, we compare two different optical Augmented Reality setups equipped with hand tracking. The first one is based on a Microsoft HoloLens (released in 2016) and the other one is based on a Magic Leap One (released more than two years later). Both devices offer similar solutions for the visualization and registration problems but differ in the hand tracking approach, since the former uses a metaphoric hand-gesture tracking and the latter relies on an isomorphic approach. We raise seven research questions regarding these two setups, which we answer after performing two task-based experiments using virtual elements, of different sizes, that are moved using natural hand interaction. The questions deal with the accuracy and performance achieved with these setups and also with user preference, recommendation and perceived usefulness. For this purpose, we collect both subjective and objective data about the completion of these tasks. Our initial hypothesis was that there would be differences, in favor of the isomorphic and newer setup, in the use of hand interaction. However, the results surprisingly show that there are very small objective differences between these setups, and the isomorphic approach is not significantly better in terms of accuracy and mistakes, although it allows a faster completion of one of the tasks. In addition, no remarkable statistically significant differences can be found between the two setups in the subjective datasets gathered through a specific questionnaire. We also analyze the opinions of the participants in terms of usefulness, preference and recommendation. The results show that, although the Magic Leap-based system gets more support, the differences are not statistically significant.

show abstract

Manipulating 3D Anatomic Models in Augmented Reality: Comparing a Hands-Free Approach and a Manual Approach

Cited by 13 publications

References 36 publications

A Review of Interaction Techniques for Immersive Environments

A Review of Interaction Techniques for Immersive Environments

GyroSuite

An empirical evaluation of two natural hand interaction systems in augmented reality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About