skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Multi-Touch Querying on Data Physicalizations in Immersive AR

Published:05 November 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Data physicalizations (3D printed terrain models, anatomical scans, or even abstract data) can naturally engage both the visual and haptic senses in ways that are difficult or impossible to do with traditional planar touch screens and even immersive digital displays. Yet, the rigid 3D physicalizations produced with today's most common 3D printers are fundamentally limited for data exploration and querying tasks that require dynamic input (e.g., touch sensing) and output (e.g., animation), functions that are easily handled with digital displays. We introduce a novel style of hybrid virtual + physical visualization designed specifically to support interactive data exploration tasks. Working toward a "best of both worlds" solution, our approach fuses immersive AR, physical 3D data printouts, and touch sensing through the physicalization. We demonstrate that this solution can support three of the most common spatial data querying interactions used in scientific visualization (streamline seeding, dynamic cutting places, and world-in-miniature visualization). Finally, we present quantitative performance data and describe a first application to exploratory visualization of an actively studied supercomputer climate simulation data with feedback from domain scientists.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

V5iss497sVF.mp4

Supplemental video

References

  1. Daniel F Abawi, Joachim Bienwald, and Ralf Dorner. 2004. Accuracy in optical tracking with fiducial markers: an accuracy function for ARToolKit. In Third IEEE and ACM International symposium on mixed and augmented reality. IEEE, 260--261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Greg Abram, Francesca Samsel, Mark R. Petersen, Xylar Asay-Davis, Darin Comeau, Stephen F. Price, and Mike Potel. 2021. Antarctic Water Masses and Ice Shelves: Visualizing the Physics. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 41, 1 (2021), 35--41. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2020.3044228Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Daniel Acevedo, Eileen Vote, David H Laidlaw, and Martha S Joukowsky. 2001. Archaeological data visualization in VR: Analysis of lamp finds at the Great Temple of Petra, a case study. In Proceedings Visualization, 2001. VIS'01. IEEE, 493--597.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. James Ahrens, Berk Geveci, and Charles Law. 2005. Paraview: An end-user tool for large data visualization. The visualization handbook 717, 8 (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Luis Alonso, Yan Ryan Zhang, Arnaud Grignard, Ariel Noyman, Yasushi Sakai, Markus ElKatsha, Ronan Doorley, and Kent Larson. 2018. Cityscope: a data-driven interactive simulation tool for urban design. Use case volpe. In International conference on complex systems. Springer, 253--261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Benjamin Bach, Ronell Sicat, Johanna Beyer, Maxime Cordeil, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2017. The hologram in my hand: How effective is interactive exploration of 3d visualizations in immersive tangible augmented reality? IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 1 (2017), 457--467.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christoph Bader, Dominik Kolb, James C Weaver, Sunanda Sharma, Ahmed Hosny, João Costa, and Neri Oxman. 2018. Making data matter: Voxel printing for the digital fabrication of data across scales and domains. Science advances 4, 5 (2018), eaas8652. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 5, No. ISS, Article 497. Publication date: November 2021. Multi-Touch Querying on Data Physicalizations in Immersive AR 497:17Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Francois Berard and Thibault Louis. 2017. The object inside: Assessing 3d examination with a spherical handheld perspective-corrected display. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 4396--4404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Mark Billinghurst, Hirokazu Kato, Ivan Poupyrev, et al. 2008. Tangible augmented reality. Acm siggraph asia 7, 2 (2008), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Joachim Bobrich and Steffen Otto. 2002. Augmented maps. International Archives of Photogrammetry Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 34, 4 (2002), 502--505.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerd Bruder, Frank Steinicke, Phil Wieland, and Markus Lappe. 2011. Tuning self-motion perception in virtual reality with visual illusions. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 7 (2011), 1068--1078.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Steve Bryson. 1996. Virtual reality in scientific visualization. Commun. ACM 39, 5 (1996), 62--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. William Buxton, Ralph Hill, and Peter Rowley. 1985. Issues and techniques in touch-sensitive tablet input. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 215--224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Felix A Carroll and David N Blauch. 2017. 3D printing of molecular models with calculated geometries and p orbital isosurfaces. Journal of Chemical Education 94, 7 (2017), 886--891.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Hank Childs. 2012. VisIt: An end-user tool for visualizing and analyzing very large data. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Dane Coffey, Nicholas Malbraaten, Trung Le, Iman Borazjani, Fotis Sotiropoulos, and Daniel F Keefe. 2011. Slice WIM: a multi-surface, multi-touch interface for overview+ detail exploration of volume datasets in virtual reality. In Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games. 191--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Dane Coffey, Nicholas Malbraaten, Trung Bao Le, Iman Borazjani, Fotis Sotiropoulos, Arthur G Erdman, and Daniel F Keefe. 2011. Interactive slice WIM: Navigating and interrogating volume data sets using a multisurface, multitouch VR interface. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 10 (2011), 1614--1626.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Shima Dadkhahfard, Katayoon Etemad, John Brosz, and Faramarz Samavati. 2018. Area Preserving Dynamic Geospatial Visualization on Physical Globe.. In VISIGRAPP (3: IVAPP). 309--318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kurtis Danyluk, Teoman Tomo Ulusoy, Wei Wei, and Wesley Willett. 2020. Touch and Beyond: Comparing Physical and Virtual Reality Visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hessam Djavaherpour, Ali Mahdavi-Amiri, and Faramarz F Samavati. 2017. Physical visualization of geospatial datasets. IEEE computer graphics and applications 37, 3 (2017), 61--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Hessam Djavaherpour, Faramarz Samavati, Ali Mahdavi-Amiri, Fatemeh Yazdanbakhsh, Samuel Huron, Richard Levy, Yvonne Jansen, and Lora Oehlberg. 2021. Data to Physicalization: A Survey of the Physical Rendering Process. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11175 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Bin Fang, Di Guo, Fuchun Sun, Huaping Liu, and Yupei Wu. 2015. A robotic hand-arm teleoperation system using human arm/hand with a novel data glove. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). IEEE, 2483--2488.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Sean Follmer, Daniel Leithinger, Alex Olwal, Akimitsu Hogge, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2013. inFORM: dynamic physical affordances and constraints through shape and object actuation.. In Uist, Vol. 13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Alexandre Gillet, Michel Sanner, Daniel Stoffler, David Goodsell, and Arthur Olson. 2004. Augmented reality with tangible auto-fabricated models for molecular biology applications. In IEEE Visualization 2004. IEEE, 235--241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Alexandre Gillet, Michel Sanner, Daniel Stoffler, and Arthur Olson. 2005. Tangible interfaces for structural molecular biology. Structure 13, 3 (2005), 483--491.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Leah A Groves, Patrick Carnahan, Daniel R Allen, Rankin Adam, Terry M Peters, and Elvis CS Chen. 2019. Accuracy assessment for the co-registration between optical and VIVE head-mounted display tracking. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery 14, 7 (2019), 1207--1215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Nicholas R Hedley, Mark Billinghurst, Lori Postner, Richard May, and Hirokazu Kato. 2002. Explorations in the use of augmented reality for geographic visualization. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 11, 2 (2002), 119--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Bridger Herman, Francesca Samsel, Annie Bares, Seth Johnson, Greg Abram, and Daniel F Keefe. 2020. Printmaking, Puzzles, and Studio Closets: Using Artistic Metaphors to Reimagine the User Interface for Designing Immersive Visualizations. In 2020 IEEE VIS Arts Program (VISAP). IEEE, 19--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Trevor Hogan and Eva Hornecker. 2016. Towards a design space for multisensory data representation. Interacting with Computers 29, 2 (2016), 147--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems. 234--241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Bret Jackson, Dane Coffey, and Daniel F Keefe. 2012. Force Brushes: Progressive data-driven haptic selection and filtering for multi-variate flow visualizations. Proceedings of EuroVis 2012 (2012), 7--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Bret Jackson and Daniel F Keefe. 2019. From Painting to Widgets, 6-DOF and Bimanual Input Beyond Pointing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Bret Jackson, Tung Yuen Lau, David Schroeder, Kimani C Toussaint, and Daniel F Keefe. 2013. A lightweight tangible 3D interface for interactive visualization of thin fiber structures. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2802--2809. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 5, No. ISS, Article 497. Publication date: November 2021. 497:18 Bridger Herman et al.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Bret Jackson, David Schroeder, and Daniel F Keefe. 2012. Nailing down multi-touch: anchored above the surface interaction for 3D modeling and navigation. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2012. Citeseer, 181--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Yvonne Jansen, Pierre Dragicevic, and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2013. Evaluating the efficiency of physical visualizations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2593--2602.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Yvonne Jansen, Pierre Dragicevic, Petra Isenberg, Jason Alexander, Abhijit Karnik, Johan Kildal, Sriram Subramanian, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2015. Opportunities and challenges for data physicalization. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3227--3236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Hyein Jeong, Xylar S. Asay-Davis, Adrian K. Turner, Darin S. Comeau, et al. 2020. Impacts of Ice-Shelf Melting on Water-Mass Transformation in the Southern Ocean from E3SM Simulations. Journal of Climate 33, 13 (06 2020), 5787--5807. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0683.1 arXiv:https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/articlepdf/ 33/13/5787/4955899/jclid190683.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Seth Johnson, Daniel Orban, Hakizumwami Birali Runesha, Lingyu Meng, Bethany Juhnke, Arthur Erdman, Francesca Samsel, and Daniel F Keefe. 2019. Bento box: An interactive and zoomable small multiples technique for visualizing 4d simulation ensembles in virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 6 (2019), 61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Seth Johnson, Francesca Samsel, Gregory Abram, Daniel Olson, Andrew J Solis, Bridger Herman, Phillip J Wolfram, Christophe Lenglet, and Daniel F Keefe. 2019. Artifact-based rendering: Harnessing natural and traditional visual media for more expressive and engaging 3D visualizations. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 1 (2019), 492--502.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Daniel F Keefe, Robert C Zeleznik, and David H Laidlaw. 2008. Tech-note: Dynamic dragging for input of 3D trajectories. In 2008 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces. IEEE, 51--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Nurit Kirshenbaum, James Hutchison, Ryan Theriot, Dylan Kobayashi, and Jason Leigh. 2020. Data in Context: Engaging Audiences with 3D Physical Geo-Visualization. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Tijmen Klein, Florimond Guéniat, Luc Pastur, Frédéric Vernier, and Tobias Isenberg. 2012. A design study of direct-touch interaction for exploratory 3D scientific visualization. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 31. Wiley Online Library, 1225--1234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Luv Kohli. 2010. Redirected touching: Warping space to remap passive haptics. In 2010 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI). IEEE, 129--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Joseph LaViola and Robert Zeleznik. 1999. Flex and pinch: A case study of whole hand input design for virtual environment interaction. In Proceedings of the second IASTED international conference on computer graphics and imaging. 221--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Daniel Leithinger, David Lakatos, Anthony DeVincenzi, Matthew Blackshaw, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2011. Direct and gestural interaction with relief: a 2.5 D shape display. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 541--548.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Loren Madsen. 2018. https://www.facebook.com/loren.madsen.9/posts/10156981297933841. Accessed July 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Nathalie Miebach. [n.d.]. Changing Waters. http://nathaliemiebach.com/waters.html. Accessed March 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Jung Who Nam, Krista McCullough, Joshua Tveite, Maria Molina Espinosa, Charles H Perry, Barry T Wilson, and Daniel F Keefe. 2019. Worlds-in-Wedges: Combining Worlds-in-Miniature and Portals to Support Comparative Immersive Visualization of Forestry Data. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 747--755.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Gregory Nielson, Hans Hagen, and Heinrich Muller. 1997. Scientific visualization. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Niels Christian Nilsson, Andre Zenner, and Adalberto L Simeone. 2020. Haptic Proxies for Virtual Reality: Success Criteria and Taxonomy. In Workshop on Everyday Proxy Objects for Virtual Reality at CHI'20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Aditya Shekhar Nittala, Nico Li, Stephen Cartwright, Kazuki Takashima, Ehud Sharlin, and Mario Costa Sousa. 2015. PLANWELL: Spatial User Interface for Collaborative PetroleumWell-Planning. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2015 Mobile Graphics and Interactive Applications (Kobe, Japan) (SA '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 19, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818427.2818443Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Mark R. Petersen, Xylar S. Asay-Davis, et al. 2019. An Evaluation of the Ocean and Sea Ice Climate of E3SM Using MPAS and Interannual CORE-II Forcing. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 11, 5 (2019), 1438--1458. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001373Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Ben Piper, Carlo Ratti, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2002. Illuminating clay: a 3-D tangible interface for landscape analysis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 355--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. PTC. [n.d.]. Vuforia. https://www.ptc.com/en/products/vuforia/vuforia-engineGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Daniel Pustka, Jan-Patrick Hülß, Jochen Willneff, Frieder Pankratz, Manuel Huber, and Gudrun Klinker. 2012. Optical outside-in tracking using unmodified mobile phones. In 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 81--89. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 5, No. ISS, Article 497. Publication date: November 2021. Multi-Touch Querying on Data Physicalizations in Immersive AR 497:19Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Wolf-Dieter Rase. 2011. Creating physical 3D maps using rapid prototyping techniques. In True-3D in Cartography. Springer, 119--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Kim Sauvé, Dominic Potts, Jason Alexander, and Steven Houben. 2020. A Change of Perspective: How User Orientation Influences the Perception of Physicalizations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Valkyrie Savage, Xiaohan Zhang, and Björn Hartmann. 2012. Midas: fabricating custom capacitive touch sensors to prototype interactive objects. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 579--588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Will J Schroeder, Bill Lorensen, and Ken Martin. 2004. The visualization toolkit: an object-oriented approach to 3D graphics. Kitware.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Jürgen Schulze-Döbold, Uwe Wössner, Steffen PWalz, and Ulrich Lang. 2001. Volume rendering in a virtual environment. In Immersive Projection Technology and Virtual Environments 2001. Springer, 187--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Adrien Segal. 2015. Grewingk Glacier. https://www.adriensegal.com/grewingk-glacier. Accessed July 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Sensel, Inc. [n.d.]. The Sensel Morph. https://morph.sensel.com/. Accessed March 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Orit Shaer and Eva Hornecker. 2010. Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Now Publishers Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Gary Singh. 2018. Wearing Multiple Hats. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 38, 4 (2018), 6--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Jason S Sobel, Andrew S Forsberg, David H Laidlaw, Robert C Zeleznik, Daniel F Keefe, Igor Pivkin, George E Karniadakis, Peter Richardson, and Sharon Swartz. 2004. Particle flurries. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 24, 2 (2004), 76--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Hyunyoung Song, Hrvoje Benko, Francois Guimbretiere, Shahram Izadi, Xiang Cao, and Ken Hinckley. 2011. Grips and gestures on a multi-touch pen. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 1323--1332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Anthony Steed. 2008. A simple method for estimating the latency of interactive, real-time graphics simulations. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology. 123--129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Frank Steinicke, Hrvoje Benko, Antonio Krüger, Daniel Keefe, Jean-Baptiste de la Riviére, Ken Anderson, Jonna Häkkilä, Leena Arhippainen, and Minna Pakanen. 2012. The 3rd dimension of CHI (3DCHI) touching and designing 3D user interfaces. In CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2695--2698.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Andrew Stevenson, Christopher Perez, and Roel Vertegaal. 2010. An inflatable hemispherical multi-touch display. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. 289--292.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Richard Stoakley, Matthew J Conway, and Randy Pausch. 1995. Virtual reality on a WIM: interactive worlds in miniature. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 265--272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Faisal Taher, John Hardy, Abhijit Karnik, Christian Weichel, Yvonne Jansen, Kasper Hornbæk, and Jason Alexander. 2015. Exploring interactions with physically dynamic bar charts. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual acm conference on human factors in computing systems. 3237--3246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Sheng Kai Tang, Yusuke Sekikawa, Daniel Leithinger, Sean Follmer, and Hirishi Ishii. [n.d.]. Tangible CityScape. http://tangible.media.mit.edu/project/tangible-cityscape. Accessed March 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Laura Tateosian, Helena Mitasova, Brendan Harmon, Brent Fogleman, Katherine Weaver, and Russel Harmon. 2010. TanGeoMS: Tangible geospatial modeling system. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 16, 6 (2010), 1605--1612.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Russell M Taylor, Thomas C Hudson, Adam Seeger, Hans Weber, Jeffrey Juliano, and Aron T Helser. 2001. VRPN: a device-independent, network-transparent VR peripheral system. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology. 55--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Carlos E Tejada, Raf Ramakers, Sebastian Boring, and Daniel Ashbrook. 2020. AirTouch: 3D-printed Touch-Sensitive Objects Using Pneumatic Sensing. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Michael C Thrun and Florian Lerch. 2016. Visualization and 3D printing of multivariate data of biomarkers. WSCG (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Yun Wang, Adrien Segal, Roberta Klatzky, Daniel F Keefe, Petra Isenberg, Jörn Hurtienne, Eva Hornecker, Tim Dwyer, and Stephen Barrass. 2019. An emotional response to the value of visualization. IEEE computer graphics and applications 39, 5 (2019), 8--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Maximilian Weiß, Katrin Angerbauer, Alexandra Voit, Magdalena Schwarzl, Michael Sedlmair, and Sven Mayer. 2020. Revisited: Comparison of empirical methods to evaluate visualizations supporting crafting and assembly purposes. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2020), 1204--1213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Andrew D Wilson. 2010. Using a depth camera as a touch sensor. In ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. 69--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Terri L Woods, Sarah Reed, Sherry Hsi, John A Woods, and Michael R Woods. 2016. Pilot study using the augmented reality sandbox to teach topographic maps and surficial processes in introductory geology labs. Journal of Geoscience Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 5, No. ISS, Article 497. Publication date: November 2021. 497:20 Bridger Herman et al. Education 64, 3 (2016), 199--214.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Guoyong Zhang, Jianhua Gong, Yi Li, Jun Sun, Bingli Xu, Dong Zhang, Jieping Zhou, Ling Guo, Shen Shen, and Bingxiao Yin. 2020. An efficient flood dynamic visualization approach based on 3D printing and augmented reality. International Journal of Digital Earth 13, 11 (2020), 1302--1320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Multi-Touch Querying on Data Physicalizations in Immersive AR

        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!