Upload
evan-joseph
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Visual Cues For The Instructed Arrangement of Physical Objects Using Spatial Augmented Reality (SAR)Jessica TsimerisSupervisor: Bruce ThomasWearable Computer LabUniversity of South Australia
What is Augmented Reality?
•Properties of Augmented Reality:▫Blends real and virtual, in a real
environment▫Real time interactive▫Registered in 3D [thus, the real and virtual
objects are aligned]Azuma et al (2001)
What is Augmented Reality?
•Typically requires Head Mounted Devices (HMDs).
•Differs from Virtual Reality because:▫Virtual Reality suppresses the real world▫Augmented Reality enhances the real world
Raskar et al (2005)
What is Spatial Augmented Reality?•Branch of AR
•The paradigm was introduced in 1998 by Raskar et al
•Enhances the real world with virtual objects which are integrated into the real world.▫Projectors▫Flat panel displays▫etc
Advantages of SAR
•Users don’t have to wear a head mounted device or hold a device
•Allows the object to be rendered at the real world location▫Better for the human eye
Advantages of SAR
•Multiple user interaction can be achieved without multiple HMDs or mobile devices
•The visual fidelity of a physical object is unchanged, only the augmentations are rendered with lesser quality.
Advantages of SAR
•Allows for larger, brighter, higher resolution virtual objects
•Therefore allowing:▫Increased integration into the real world▫Increased immersion▫Improved user interaction
•Not restricted to a low resolution▫Mobile devices
Previous Work
•Shaderlamps, projection of textures onto scaled buildings and other real objects
Raskar et al (1999)
Previous Work
•The BUILD-IT system, a virtual object is manipulated via physical object manipulation
Fjeld (1999)
Previous Work• Virtual Object Manipulation in Virtual Worlds
▫Multimodal – speech and gestures, Irawati et al (2006)
▫Kato et al (2000) addressed a similar problem, but not multimodal
• Virtual Object Manipulation in Real Worlds▫Arrange virtual objects, surround user in a
sphere, Webster et al (1996)▫Wang et al (2007) addressed a similar problem,
but not limited to a sphere
Research Question
•What are the appropriate Spatial Augmented Reality visual cues to instruct a user on how to arrange physical objects?
Example Use
•A stagehand has to arrange sets in a theatre. They would like to rearrange the current sets and include new sets▫The system could tell him what objects to
move and the order in which to move them
Methodology
•To arrange the physical objects, the following instructions will be performed:▫Rotate▫Translate (move)
Methodology – Translation Instruction
•A circle is projected at the centre of the current location and another is displayed at the centre of the destination location
•A line between the circles shows a path from the current position to the destination
Methodology – Translation Instruction
•The projection updates as the user moves the physical object
•The object is successfully translated when the circles overlap
Methodology – Translation Instruction
•Dotted shape is the destination position•Solid shape is the current position of the
object
Methodology – Translation Instruction
•Dotted shape is the destination position•Solid shape is the current position of the
object
Methodology – Translation Instruction
•Dotted shape is the destination position•Solid shape is the current position of the
object
Methodology – Rotation Instruction
•A line from the centre of the object is displayed to indicate the current rotation, and another line is displayed to indicate the destination rotation
•A circle is projected at the end of each line
Methodology – Rotation Instruction
•The projection updates as the user rotates the physical object
•The object is successfully rotated when the circles overlap
Methodology – Rotation Instruction
•Dotted shape is the destination position•Solid shape is the current position of the
object
Methodology – Rotation Instruction
•Dotted shape is the destination position•Solid shape is the current position of the
object
Methodology – Rotation Instruction
•Dotted shape is the destination position•Solid shape is the current position of the
object
Methodology – Visual Cues
•Most used the translation and rotation instructions as described
Methodology – Visual Cues
•Most used the translation and rotation instructions as described
Methodology – Visual Cues
•Most used the translation and rotation instructions as described
Methodology – Visual Cues
•Most used the translation and rotation instructions as described
Implementation
•Camera•Projector•Tracking
▫ARToolKitPlus•SAR Module
▫OpenGL/C++
Implementation
•Two Dimensional Environment▫To arrange 2D representations of the
physical objects from a top-down view.▫Arrangement can then be performed on the
corresponding physical objects using SAR cues. Can be used for remote object arrangement
Implementation
•Object Arrangement Process▫Revisit incorrect
instructions.
Implementation
Implementation
Implementation
Implementation
Implementation
User Study
•Nine visual cues to arrange objects▫One without using SAR▫Eight visual cue variations
User Study• Task Completion Time• Accuracy• User Opinion (survey)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Task Number
Tim
e (
mil
lise
conds)
Results
•The cue that didn’t use SAR was the second slowest
Results
•The cue that didn’t use SAR had the least accurate x axis arrangements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Task Number
Avera
ge x
Axis
Vari
ati
on (
unit
s)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Task Number
Avera
ge y
Axis
Vari
ati
on (
unit
s)Results
•The cue that didn’t use SAR had the least accurate y axis arrangements
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Task Number
Avera
ge R
ota
tion V
ari
ati
on (
degre
es)
Results
•The cue that didn’t use SAR had the least accurate rotation
Results
•95% of participants preferred Task 2 (Translation First) over the manual arrangement
Preference for Task 1 (No SAR)Preference for Task 2 (Translation First)
Preference for the Wireframe Cues (Task 6 and Task 7)Preference for the Square Cues (Task 8 and Task 9)
Results
•75% of participants preferred visual cues that utilised a square projection over visual cues that utilised a wireframe projection
Results
•Visual cues that displayed both rotation and translation at the same time were most preferable.
2 3 4 6 7 8 90
2
4
6
8
10
12
Preferences for the Visual Cue as Part of a Combi-nation
Preference for the Visual Cue
Task Number
Nu
mb
er
of
Pre
f-ere
nces
Conclusion
•SAR visual cues have been developed that are:▫Faster than a manual arrangement
technique▫More accurate for x axis translation▫More accurate for y axis translation▫More accurate for rotation▫Preferred over a manual arrangement
technique
Improved Visual Cue
•Development of a new visual cue that took the user study results into account, particularly:▫Square Cues were quicker▫One of the Square Cues was the most
accurate cue▫Participants preferred seeing both
translation and rotation at the same time More intuitive
▫Participants ranked the square cues highly Legible, less cluttered
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Improved Visual Cue
•Developed from results of the user study
Future Work
•The order in which the objects will be arranged
•Better tracking•Formal evaluation of the new visual cue•Multiple cameras and projectors
▫Testing scalability
References• Azuma, R 1997, ‘A Survey of Augmented Reality’, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual
Environments, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 355-385.• Bimber, O & Raskar, R 2005, Spatial Augmented Reality: Merging Real and Virtual
Worlds, AK Peters, Ltd, Wellesley, MA.• Fjeld, M, Voorhorst, F, Bichsel, M, Lauche, M, Rauterberg, M & Krueger, H 1999,
'Exploring Brick-Based Navigation and Composition in an Augmented Reality', Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 1707, pp. 102-116.
• Irawati, S, Green, S, Billinghurst, M, Duenser, A & Ko, H 2006, '"Move the Couch Where?": Developing an Augmented Reality Multimodal Interface', Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, Proceedings of the 5th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 183-186.
• Kato, H, Billinghurst, M, Poupyrev, K, Imamoto, K & Tachibana, K 2000, 'Virtual Object Manipulation on a Table-Top AR Environment', Human Interface, pp. 275-278.
• Raskar, R & Low, K-L 2001, Interacting With Spatially Augmented Reality, ACM, Camps Bay, Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 101-108.
• Wang, X & Gong, Y 2007, Augmented Virtuality Space: Enriching Virtual Design Environments with Reality, Brisbane, Australia.
• Webster, A, Feiner, S, MacIntyre, B, Massie, W & Krueger, T 1996, Augmented Reality in Architectural Construction, Inspection, and Renovation.
Questions?