Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Naturalistic approaches applied to AR technology: an evaluation

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is a significant body of research in “naturalistic designs” of augmented reality (AR), concerning different fields (medicine, education, arts etc). Although naturalistic approaches have the potential to enable new forms of experiencing and experimenting with AR technologies, it remains unclear how they can impact participants’ motivation. From within an evaluation of the relevant literature and research results pertaining to naturalistic approaches to AR technology, this study aims to show how naturalistic approaches can be particularly effective in increasing the usefulness of the three widely recognized types of AR (marker-based AR, markerless and location-based AR). This study presents the results of an analysis of a review of articles of the peer-reviewed literature on naturalistic approaches applied to AR, considering the advantages, disadvantages and effectiveness of the combination of naturalistic approaches with AR across various domains. In total 33 studies published in peer-reviewed journals and conferences were analyzed. The implications of this research are that naturalistic approaches applied to AR technology help to foster positive attitudes towards AR, to facilitate collaboration and to enhance the users’ social collaboration, personal development and skills in the use of AR software. Among all domains of applications of AR with naturalistic approaches (education, medicine, digital arts, cultural heritage), the domain of human-computer interaction has attracted more attention in experimental researches. Also, motion-sensing input devices are the kind of technology which appears more beneficial for these fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrie, P., Komninos, A., & Mandrychenko, O. (2009, September). A pervasive gesture-driven augmented reality prototype using wireless sensor body area networks. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mobile Technology, Application & Systems (pp. 1-4).

  • Bettelli, A., Orso, V., Pluchino, P., & Gamberini, L. (2019, September). An enriched visit to the botanical garden: Co-designing tools and contents. In Proceedings of the 13th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter: Designing the next interaction (pp. 1-5).

  • Brata, K. C., & Liang, D. (2019). An effective approach to develop location-based augmented reality information support. International Journal of Electrical & Computer Engineering (2088–8708), 9.

  • Cai, S., Chiang, F. K., Sun, Y., Lin, C., & Lee, J. J. (2017). Applications of augmented reality-based natural interactive learning in magnetic field instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(6), 778–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. M., & Tsai, Y. N. (2012). Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools. Computers & Education, 59(2), 638–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coimbra, M. T., Cardoso, T., & Mateus, A. (2015). Augmented reality: An enhancer for higher education students in math's learning? Procedia Computer Science, 67, 332–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.

  • Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgiou, Y., & Kyza, E. A. (2017, October). A design-based approach to augmented reality location-based activities: Investigating immersion in relation to student learning. In Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (pp. 1-8).

  • Gilroy, S. W., Cavazza, M., Chaignon, R., Mäkelä, S. M., Niranen, M., André, E., ... & Benayoun, M. (2008a, October). E-tree: emotionally driven augmented reality art. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia (pp. 945–948).

  • Gilroy, S. W., Cavazza, M., Chaignon, R., Mäkelä, S. M., Niranen, M., André, E., ... & Benayoun, M. (2008b, December). An affective model of user experience for interactive art. In proceedings of the 2008 international conference on advances in computer entertainment technology (pp. 107–110).

  • Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D. D. (1983). Cognitive systems engineering: New wine in new bottles. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 18(6), 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D. D. (2005). Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. CRC press.

  • International Organization for Standardization. (2002). ISO/TR 16982: Ergonomics of human-system interaction-usability methods supporting human-centred design [electronic resource]. ISO.

  • Irshad, S., & Rambli, D. R. B. A. (2014, September). User experience of mobile augmented reality: A review of studies. In 2014 3rd International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr) (pp. 125-130). IEEE.

  • ISO, I. (1999). 13407: Human-centred design processes for interactive systems. Geneva: ISO.

  • Kerr, S. J., Rice, M. D., Teo, Y., Wan, M., Cheong, Y. L., Ng, J., ... & Wren, D. (2011, December). Wearable mobile augmented reality: evaluating outdoor user experience. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry (pp. 209–216).

  • Kim, T., & Cooperstock, J. R. (2018, February). Enhanced pressure-based multimodal immersive experiences. In Proceedings of the 9th Augmented Human International Conference (pp. 1-3).

  • Kothari, R., Binaee, K., Matthis, J. S., Bailey, R., & Diaz, G. J. (2016, March). Novel apparatus for investigation of eye movements when walking in the presence of 3D projected obstacles. In Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (pp. 261-266).

  • Krauß, M., Riege, K., Winter, M., & Pemberton, L. (2009, September). Remote hands-on experience: Distributed collaboration with augmented reality. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 226-239). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Kujala, S. (2002). User studies: A practical approach to user involvement for gathering user needs and requirements. Helsinki University of Technology.

  • Livingston, M. A. (2005). Evaluating human factors in augmented reality systems. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 25(6), 6–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins, S., Vairinhos, M., Eliseu, S., & Borgerson, J. (2016, December). Input system interface for image-guided surgery based on augmented reality. In 2016 1st International Conference on Technology and Innovation in Sports, Health and Wellbeing (TISHW) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

  • Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1995, December). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In Telemanipulator and telepresence technologies (Vol. 2351, pp. 282-292). International Society for Optics and Photonics.

  • Nigay, L., Salembier, P., Marchand, T., Renevier, P., & Pasqualetti, L. (2002, September). Mobile and collaborative augmented reality: A scenario based design approach. In International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 241-255). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Nilsson, S. (2010). Augmentation in the wild: User centered development and evaluation of augmented reality applications (Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University Electronic Press).

  • Nilsson, S., & Johansson, B. (2006, September). A cognitive systems engineering perspective on the design of mixed reality systems. In Proceedings of the 13th Eurpoean conference on Cognitive ergonomics: trust and control in complex socio-technical systems (pp. 154-161).

  • Nilsson, S., Johansson, B., & Jönsson, A. (2010). A holistic approach to design and evaluation of mixed reality systems. In The Engineering of Mixed Reality Systems (pp. 33–55). Springer, London.

  • O’Shea, P., Mitchell, R., Johnston, C., & Dede, C. (2009). Lessons learned about designing augmented realities. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), 1(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, P., Tost, J., & Wettach, R. (2015, January). i. Ge: Exploring new game interaction metaphors with interactive projection. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 733-738).

  • Reid, J., Hull, R., Clayton, B., Melamed, T., & Stenton, P. (2011). A research methodology for evaluating location aware experiences. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(1), 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zsolczay, R., Brown, R., Maire, F., & Turkay, S. (2019, December). Vague gesture control: Implications for burns patients. In Proceedings of the 31st Australian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction (pp. 524-528).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain

    Konstantina Sdravopoulou & Juan Manuel Muñoz González

  2. Department of Education, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Juan Jesús Gutiérrez Castillo

Authors
  1. Konstantina Sdravopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan Jesús Gutiérrez Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Manuel Muñoz González
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Konstantina Sdravopoulou: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.

Juan Jesús Gutiérrez Castillo: Supervision.

Juan Manuel Muñoz González: Supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantina Sdravopoulou.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sdravopoulou, K., Castillo, J.J.G. & González, J.M.M. Naturalistic approaches applied to AR technology: an evaluation. Educ Inf Technol 26, 683–697 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10283-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10283-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation