The effect of video placement in AR conferencing applications

Emerging Immersive Communication Systems: Overview, Taxonomy, and Good Practises for QoE Assessment

“…Also, unlike the given examples of pure shared immersion, the realism of users is important. Earlier versions simply inserted a 2D video of the remote user within the AR or VR environment, as in Lawrence et al (2018); Prins et al (2018). In more advanced implementations, such as the aforementioned Holoportation and VR Together, users are represented using 3D point clouds obtained from volumetric video capture.…”

“…This was also studied in face-to-face window systems as in Kim et al (2019b). Other studies that do not use shared contents emphasize the deliberation proposing tasks such as negotiation (Lawrence et al, 2018), playing games (e.g., riddles in Anjos et al (2019), tell a lie in Orts-Escolano et al ( 2016), etc.) or using semi-structured interviews (Lawrence et al, 2021).…”

“…Several user studies test the capabilities of remote assistance and immersive telepresence systems proposing tasks where the host manipulates physical objects (e.g., Lego blocks in Wang et al (2020); Bai et al (2020)) or places them in the task environment (Lee et al, 2018;Teo et al, 2019a;Piumsomboon et al, 2018Piumsomboon et al, , 2019 following the indications of the visitor. These tasks have been also exploited in Social XR systems, such as in Lawrence et al (2018) and Orts-Escolano et al (2016). Nevertheless, Social XR/VR systems offer the possibility to test the interact with the environment, such as in Li et al (2021), where the users could press buttons, or with virtual objects, such as in Pan and Steed (2017) and Prins et al (2018), where the users played together puzzles and pong games, respectively.…”

“…Other conditions that influence higher-level features of the of the user experience can provide also insights of the performance of the systems, such as the use of different types of embodiment in Shared VR (e.g., with or without self-avatar in Pan and Steed (2017)) or the positioning of the visitor representation (e.g., video, volumetric representation, etc.) in immersive telepresence and Social XR systems (Lawrence et al, 2018;Zhang et al, 2020;Piumsomboon et al, 2018Piumsomboon et al, , 2019. Finally, systems that do not consider communication also study technical aspects related to the interaction of the users with the systems, such as latency (Brunnström et al, 2020) or the use of controllers (Pérez et al, 2021).…”

“…The most common feature evaluated in several studies is presence, which sometimes is evaluated in terms of spatial, social, and co-presence. As shown in Table 3, presence was considered in user studies involving almost all system archetypes, such as Social XR (Orts-Escolano et al, 2016;Prins et al, 2018;Lawrence et al, 2018;Gunkel et al, 2018;Li et al, 2021), Shared VR (Li et al, 2019), face-to-face window (Lawrence et al, 2021), remote assistance (Young et al, 2019;Lee et al, 2018;Teo et al, 2019aTeo et al, , 2020Wang et al, 2020;Bai et al, 2020), immersive telepresence (Piumsomboon et al, 2019), and digital twin systems (Piumsomboon et al, 2018). As reflected in Table 4, different questionnaires have been used to evaluate presence in its different forms, although some traditional ones are used in several different studies, such as the one proposed by Witmer and Singer (WS) (Witmer and Singer, 1998) and the MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ) from Vorderer et al ( 2004) for spatial presence, and the Networked Minds Measure Social Presence Inventory (NMM-SPI) from Harms and Biocca (2004) for social and co-presence.…”