skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

A Composite Framework of Co-located Asymmetric Virtual Reality

Published:22 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

As the variety of possible interactions with virtual reality (VR) continues to expand, researchers need a way to relate these interactions to users' needs and goals in ways that advance understanding. Existing efforts have focused mainly on the symmetric use of technology, which excludes a rising form of interaction known as asymmetric VR, in which co-located participants use different interfaces to interact with a shared environment. There must be a clear path to creating asymmetric VR systems that are rooted in previous work from several fields, as these systems have use cases in education, hybrid reality teams (using VR and other technologies to interact online and face to face), accessibility, as well as entertainment. Currently, there is no systematic way to characterize 1) how a system may be asymmetric, 2) how the different mediation technology and affordances within asymmetric VR support (or do not support) users' goals, and 3) the relationships and collaborative capabilities between users of these different technologies. In this paper, the authors use a scoping review to explore relevant conceptual frameworks for asymmetric interaction, mediation technology, and computer supported cooperative work to clarify the dimensions of asymmetry and synthesize the literature into a Composite framework for Asymmetric VR (CAVR). The paper concludes with suggestions of ways to test and expand the framework in order to guide future research as it identifies the most-beneficial interaction paradigms for co-located asymmetric VR.

References

  1. Kenneth J. Arrow. 1963. Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care. Am. Econ. Rev.53, 5 (1963), 941--973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ron Baecker, Steve Harrison, Bill Buxton, Steven Poltrock, and Elizabeth Churchill. 2008. Media spaces: Past visions, current realities, future promise. In Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '08, Association for Computing Machinery, Florence, Italy, 2245--2248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358660Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Gail Reynard, Chris Brown, and Boriana Koleva. 1998. Understanding and constructing shared spaces with mixed-reality boundaries. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact.5, 3 (September 1998), 185--223. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/292834.292836.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Lauren E Benishek and Elizabeth H Lazzara. 2019. Teams in a New Era: Some Considerations and Implications. Front. Psychol.10, 1006 (2019), 1--15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Anastasiia Beznosyk, Peter Quax, Wim Lamotte, and Karin Coninx. 2012. The Effect of Closely-Coupled Interaction on Player Experience in Casual Games. In Entertainment Computing-ICEC 2012, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 243--255. Retrieved from www.soe.comGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Walter R Boot, Andrew Dilanchian, and Ronald Andringa. 2019. Exploring Older Adults' Perceptions of Presence and Immersion in Diverse Virtual Environments. Innov. Aging 3, Supplement_1 (November 2019), S239--S240. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igz038.895.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Matt Bower, Mark J.W. Lee, and Barney Dalgarno. 2017. Collaborative learning across physical and virtual worlds: Factors supporting and constraining learners in a blended reality environment. Br. J. Educ. Technol.48, 2 (March 2017), 407--430. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12435.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Doug A. Bowman and Ryan P. McMahan. 2007. Virtual Reality: How Much Immersion Is Enough? Computer (Long. Beach. Calif).40, 7 (July 2007), 36--43. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2007.257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jon Ram Bruun-Pedersen, Stefania Serafin, and Lise Busk Kofoed. 2016. Going Outside While Staying Inside - Exercise Motivation with Immersive vs. Non-immersive Recreational Virtual Environment Augmentation for Older Adult Nursing Home Residents. In2016 IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI), IEEE, Chicago, IL, 216--226. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHI.2016.31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Bill Buxton. 2009. Mediaspace -- Meaningspace -- Meetingspace. In Media Space 20 + Years of Mediated Life, Steve Harrison (ed.). Springer, London, 217--231. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-483-6_13Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Paul R. Carlile. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci.13, 4 (2002), 442--456. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Marco Cavallo, Mishal Dolakia, Matous Havlena, Kenneth Ocheltree, and Mark Podlaseck. 2019. Immersive Insights: A Hybrid Analytics System for Collaborative Exploratory Data Analysis. In25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST '19), Association for Computing Machinery, Parramatta, NSW, Australia, 1--12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359996.3364242.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Alan Dix, Janet Finlay, Gregory D. Abowd, and Russell Beale. 2004. Design Rules. In Human-Computer Interaction (Third Edit). Pearson Education limited.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Barrett Ens, Joel Lanir, Anthony Tang, Scott Bateman, Gun Lee, Thammathip Piumsomboon, and Mark Billinghurst. 2019. Revisiting collaboration through mixed reality: The evolution of groupware. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.131, February (2019), 81--98. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Juliano Franz, Mohammed Alnusayri, Joseph Malloch, and Derek Reilly. 2019. A Comparative Evaluation of Techniques for Sharing AR Experiences in Museums. Proc. ACM Human-Computer Interact.3, CSCW (November 2019), 124:1--20. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jeronimo Gustavo Grandi, Henrique Galvan Debarba, and Anderson Maciel. 2019. Characterizing Asymmetric Collaborative Interactions in Virtual and Augmented Realities. In IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (IEEEVR 2019), IEEE, 127--135. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/vr.2019.8798080.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jan Gugenheimer, Mark McGill, Frank Steinicke, Christian Mai, Julie Williamson, and Ken Perlin. 2019. Challenges using head-mounted displays in shared and social spaces. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 1--8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3299028.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jan Gugenheimer, Evgeny Stemasov, Julian Frommel, and Enrico Rukzio. 2017. ShareVR: Enabling Co-Located Experiences for Virtual Reality between HMD and Non-HMD Users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, Denver, CO, USA, 4021--4033. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025683.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Carl Gutwin and Saul Greenberg. 2002. A Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness for Real-Time Groupware. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 11, (September 2002), 411--446. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021271517844Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. P.J. Hammer, D. Haas-Wilson, W.M. Sage, and M.A. Peterson (Eds.). 2003. Uncertain times: Kenneth Arrow and the changing economics of health care. Duke University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. John Harris and Mark Hancock. 2019. To Asymmetry and Beyond! In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '19, ACM, Glasgow, Scotland UK, 1--12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300239Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. John Harris, Mark Hancock, and Stacey D. Scott. 2016. Leveraging Asymmetries in Multiplayer Games. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts - CHI PLAY Companion '16, ACM, Austin, TX, USA, 350--361. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968113Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Christian Heath and Paul Luff. 1992. Media Space and Communicative Asymmetries: Preliminary Observations of Video-Mediated Interaction. Human-Computer Interact.7, 3 (September 1992), 315--346. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0703_3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Rorik Henrikson, Bruno De Araujo, Fanny Chevalier, Karan Singh, and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2016. Multi-device storyboards for cinematic narratives in VR. UIST 2016 - Proc. 29th Annu. Symp. User Interface Softw. Technol. (2016), 787--796. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2984511.2984539.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Robin Hunicke, Marc Leblanc, and Robert Zubek. 2004. MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. AAAI Work. - Tech. Rep.WS-04-04, (2004), 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Robert Johansen. 1988. Groupware computer support for business teams. The Free Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson. 1994. Constructive Conflict in the Schools. J. Soc. Issues 50, 1 (1994), 117--137. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540--4560.1994.tb02401.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Bradley L Kirkman and John E Mathieu. 2005. The Dimensions and Antecedents of Team Virtuality. J. Manage.31, (2005), 700--718. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279113Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Ned Kock. 1998. Can communication medium limitations foster better group outcomes? An action research study. Inf. Manag.34, (1998), 295--305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Martin Kraus and Martin Kibsgaard. 2015. A Classification of Human-to-Human Communication during the Use of Immersive Teleoperation Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2015 Virtual Reality International Conference on ZZZ - VRIC '15, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1--8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2806173.2806198Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. J. Lave and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Charlotte P. Lee and Drew Paine. 2015. From the matrix to a model of coordinated action (MoCA): A conceptual framework of and for CSCW. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing - CSCW '15, ACM Press, Vancouver, BC, Can, 179--194. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675161Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Paul Luff, Christian Heath, and David Greatbatch. 1992. Tasks-in-interaction: Paper and screen based documentation in collaborative activity. In Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 163--170. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/143457.143475Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Paul Luff, Christian Heath, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Jon Hindmarsh, Keiichi Yamazaki, and Shinya Oyama. 2003. Fractured Ecologies: Creating Environments for Collaboration. Human--Computer Interact.18, 1-2 (June 2003), 51--84. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Paul Luff, Christian Heath, Menisha Patel, Dirk Vom Lehn, and Andrew Highfield. 2018. Creating Interdependencies: Managing Incidents in Large Organizational Environments. Human-Computer Interact.33, 5--6 (2018), 544--584. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2017.1412830Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Paul K. Luff, Naomi Yamashita, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Christian Heath. 2015. Flexible ecologies and incongruent locations. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc.2015-April, (2015), 877--886. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702286Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Shannon L. Marlow, Christina N. Lacerenza, and Eduardo Salas. 2016. Communication in virtual teams: a conceptual framework and research agenda. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.27, 4 (2016), 575--589. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Mark McGill, Daniel Boland, Roderick Murray-Smith, and Stephen Brewster. 2015. A Dose of Reality: Overcoming Usability Challenges in VR Head-Mounted Displays. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15, ACM Press, Seoul, S Korea, 2143--2152. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.346.6212.908Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino. 1994. Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst.E77-D, 12 (1994), 1321--1329.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Zachary Munn, Micah D.J. Peters, Cindy Stern, Catalin Tufanaru, Alexa McArthur, and Edoardo Aromataris. 2018. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol.18, 1 (2018), 1--7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Catherine S. Oh, Jeremy N. Bailenson, and Gregory F. Welch. 2018. A systematic review of social presence: Definition, antecedents, and implications. Front. Robot. AI 5, OCT (2018), 1--35. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00114Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas Olsson, Pradthana Jarusriboonchai, Pawel Wozniak, Susanna Paasovaara, Kaisa Väänänen, and Andrés Lucero. 2019. Technologies for Enhancing Collocated Social Interaction: Review of Design Solutions and Approaches. Comput. Support. Coop. Work (February 2019). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09345-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Oliver Otto, Dave Roberts, and Robin Wolff. 2006. A review on effective closely-coupled collaboration using immersive CVE's. Proc. - VRCIA 2006 ACM Int. Conf. Virtual Real. Contin. its Appl. (2006), 145--154. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1128923.1128947Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Christopher Poile. 2010. Asymmetric dependence and its effect on helping behaviour. University of Waterloo. Retrieved from https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/bitstream/handle/10012/4954/Poile_Christopher.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Roy A. Ruddle, Justin C. D. Savage, and Dylan M. Jones. 2002. Symmetric and asymmetric action integration during cooperative object manipulation in virtual environments. ACM Trans. Comput. Interact.9, 4 (December 2002), 285--308. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/586081.586084Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Serena G. Sohrab, Mary J. Waller, and Seth Kaplan. 2015. Exploring the Hidden-Profile Paradigm: A Literature Review and Analysis. Small Gr. Res.46, 5 (2015), 489--535. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415599068Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Anthony Steed, William Steptoe, Wole Oyekoya, Fabrizio Pece, Tim Weyrich, Jan Kautz, Doron Friedman, Angelika Peer, Massimiliano Solazzi, Franco Tecchia, Massimo Bergamasco, and Mel Slater. 2012. Beaming: An asymmetric telepresence system. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl.32, 6 (2012), 10--17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2012.110Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Steel Crate Games. 2015. Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes. Retrieved from https://store.steampowered.com/app/341800/Keep_Talking_and_Nobody_Explodes/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Lui Albæk Thomsen, Niels Christian Nilsson, Rolf Nordahl, and Boris Lohmann. 2019. Asymmetric collaboration in virtual reality. Tidsskr. Læring og Medier 12, 20 (March 2019), 1--28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v12i20.109391Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Güliz Tokaldi, Kaitlyn Ouverson, Chase Meusel, Austin Garcia, Stephen B. Gilbert, and Michael C. Dorneich. 2018. An Analysis of Video Games Using the Dimensions of Human-Agent Interaction. In Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society (HFES) Annual Meeting, 716--720.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Amy Voida, Stephen Voida, Saul Greenberg, and Helen Ai He. 2008. Asymmetry in media spaces. Proc. ACM Conf. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. CSCW (2008), 313--322. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460615Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. WalkinVR. 2020. WalkinVR Driver. Retrieved from https://walkinvrdriver.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Erin Casey Whitworth. 2017. Hetero-Technic Cooperation with Computing and Non-Computing Technologies: A Study of the Transmodal Capacity of Prosodic Cues to Alleviate Asymmetric Access to Tactile Phenomena. The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/63565Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Christopher W. Wiese, Marissa L. Shuffler, and Eduardo Salas. 2015. Teamwork and Team Performance Measurement (Second Edi ed.). Elsevier. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.22017-5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Jason Wuertz, Sultan A. Alharthi, William A. Hamilton, Scott Bateman, Carl Gutwin, Anthony Tang, Zachary O. Toups, and Jessica Hammer. 2018. A design framework for awareness cues in distributed multiplayer games. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. - Proc.2018-April, (2018), 1--14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173817Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Composite Framework of Co-located Asymmetric Virtual Reality

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!