Abstract
This chapter gives an overview of the interaction techniques for mixed reality with its variations of augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR). Various modalities for input and output are discussed. Specifically, techniques for tangible and surface-based interaction, gesture-based, pen-based, gaze-based, keyboard and mouse-based, as well as haptic interaction are discussed. Furthermore, the combinations of multiple modalities in multisensory and multimodal interaction as well as interaction using multiple physical or virtual displays are presented. Finally, interactions with intelligent virtual agents are considered.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Tangible interaction
- Augmented surfaces
- Gestures
- Magic lens
- Eye gaze
- Pen-based interaction
- Keyboard and mouse
- Haptics
- Multimodal
- Multi-display interaction
- Intelligent virtual agents
1 Introduction
This chapter gives an overview of interaction techniques for mixed reality (MR) with its variations of augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR). Early research in the field of MR interaction techniques focused on the use of surface-based, tangible, and gesture-based interaction, which will be presented at the beginning of this chapter. Further modalities, such as pen-based, gaze-based, or haptic interaction, have recently gained attention and are presented next. Further, with the move toward productivity-oriented use cases, interaction with established input devices such as keyboard and mouse has gained interest from the research community. Finally, inspired by the popularity of conversational agents, interaction with intelligent virtual agents is discussed.
The development of interaction techniques is closely related to the advancements in input devices. Hence, the reader is invited to study the according book chapter as well.
While this chapter follows the abovementioned structure, further possibilities of structure interaction techniques include organization according to interaction tasks [1] such as object selection [2,3,4] and object manipulation [5], navigation [6], symbolic input [7], or system control [8]. Further, interaction techniques for specific application domains have been proposed, such as music [9] games [10] or immersive analytics [11].
Interested readers are also referred to further surveys and books in areas such as 3D interaction techniques, [12] or interaction with smart glasses [13].
2 Tangible and Surface-Based Interaction
This section presents the concepts of tangible user interfaces (TUIs) and their applicability in AR. It covers the effects of output media, spatial registration approaches for TUIs, tangible magic lenses, augmenting large surfaces like walls and whole rooms, the combination of AR with shape-changing displays, and the role of TUIs for VR-based interaction. Figure 5.1 depicts an overview about output and input devices typically found in TUI-based interaction for MR.
TUIs are concerned with the use of physical objects as medium for interaction with computers [14] and has gained substantial interest in human–computer interaction [15]. Early prototypes utilized tabletop setting on which physical objects were placed to change properties of digital media. For example, Underkoffler and Ishii introduced a simulation of an optical workbench using tangible objects on a tabletop [16] as well as an application for architectural planning [17].
In AR, this concept was introduced by Kato et al. [18] as tangible augmented reality (TAR). They used a paddle as prop, equipped with a fiducial, to place furniture inside a house model. Fjeld et al. [19] introduced further tangibles such as a booklet and a cube for interaction within an educational application for chemistry.
TAR AR is used for visualizing digital information on physical objects while using those physical objects as interaction devices. Billinghurst et al. [20] stated that the TAR characteristics have a spatial registration between virtual and physical objects and the ability of users to interact with those virtual objects by manipulating the physical ones. Regenbrecht et al. [21] utilized a rotary plate to allow multiple co-located users to manipulate the orientation of a shared virtual object.
This way, the gap between digital output (e.g., on a flat screen) and physical input (e.g., using a rotary knob) can be reduced as the digital information is directly overlaid over the physical content.
Lee et al. [22] described the common interaction themes in the TAR application such as static and dynamic mappings between physical and digital objects. They describe a space-multiplexed approach, where each physical tool is mapped to a single virtual tool or function as well as a time-multiplexed approach in which the physical object is mapped to different digital tools dependent on the context of use.
However, the effect of this overlay is also dependent on the output medium used. For example, when using projection-based systems [23] or video see-through (VST) head-mounted displays (HMDs) (c.f. chapter 10 in [24]), the distance between the observer and the physical and virtual objects is the same. In contrast, when using commodity optical see-through (OST) HMDs with a fixed focal plane, there can be an substantial cost of perceiving virtual and physical objects at the same time. Specifically, Eiberger et al. [25] demonstrated that when processing visual information jointly from objects within arms’ reach (in this case, a handheld display) and information presented on a OST HMD at a different distance, the task completion times increases by approximately 50%, and the error rate increased by approximately 100% compared with processing this visual information solely on the OST HMD.
For spatially registering physical and virtual objects, early works on TAR often relied on fiducial markers, such as that provided by ARToolKit [26] or ARUCO [27]. While easy to prototype (i.e., simply, fiducials have to be printed out and attached to objects), these markers can inhibit interaction due to their susceptibility to occlusions (typically through hand and finger interaction). Hence, it is advised to use modern approaches for hand-based interaction [28, 29] with spatially tracked rigid and non-rigid objects [30,31,32].
A specific kind of TAR can be seen in tangible magic lenses, which evolved through a combination from the magic lens [33] and tangible interaction concepts [14]. Tangible magic lenses allow for access to and manipulation of otherwise hidden data in interactive spatial environments.
Evolving from the magic lens [33] and tangible interaction concepts [14], tangible magic lenses allow for access to and manipulation of otherwise hidden data in interactive spatial environments. A wide variety of interaction concepts for interactive magic lenses have been proposed within the scope of information visualization (see surveys [34, 35]).
Within AR, various rigid shapes have been explored. Examples include rectangular lenses for tabletop interaction [36] or circular lenses [37]. Flexible shapes (e.g., [38]) have been utilized as well as multiple sheets of paper [39]. In their pioneering work, Szalavári and Gervautz [40] introduced the personal-interaction panel in AR. The two-handed and pen-operated tablet allowed for the selection and manipulation of virtual object as well as for system control. Additionally, transparent props have been explored (e.g., a piece of plexiglass) both for tabletop AR [41,42,43] and VR [44]. Purely virtual tangible lenses have been proposed as well [45]. Brown et al. [46] introduced a cubic shape which could either perspectively correct, render, and manipulate 3D objects or text. This idea was later revisited by Issartel et al. [47] in a mobile setting.
Often, projection-based AR has been used to realize tangible magic lenses, in which a top-mounted projector illuminates a prop such as a piece of cardboard or other reflective materials [36, 48] and (typically RGB or depth) cameras process user input.
Mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets are also commonly used as a tangible magic lens [49, 50], and can be used in conjunction with posters [49], books [51], digital screens [50], or maps [52, 53].
When using the tangible magic lens metaphor in public space, one should be aware about the social acceptability, specifically due to the visibility of spatial gestures and postures [54, 55]. For example, in a series of studies across gaming and touristic use cases, Grubert et al. [56, 57] explored benefits and drawbacks of smartphone-based tangible lens interfaces in public settings and compared them with traditional static peephole interaction, commonly used in mobile map applications. They found that user acceptance is largely dependent on the social and physical setting. In a public bus stop in a large open space used at a transit area in a public transportation stop, participants favored the magic lens over a static peephole interface despite tracking errors, fatigue, and potentially conspicuous gestures. Also, most passersby did not pay attention to the participants and vice versa. However, when deploying the same experience in a different public transportation stop with other spatial and social contexts (waiting area, less space to avoid physical proximity to others), participants used and preferred the magic lens interface significantly less compared with a static peephole interface.
Further, when using smartphones or tablets as magic lenses, the default user’s view is based on the position of the physical camera attached to the handheld device. However, this can potentially negatively affect the user’s experience [58, 59]. Hence, it can be advisable to incorporate user-perspective rendering to render the scene from the point of view of the user’s head. In this domain, Hill et al. [60] introduced user-perspective rendering as virtual transparency for VST AR. Baričević et al. [61] compared user- vs. device-perspective rendering in a VR simulation. Tomioka et al. [62] presented approximated user-perspective rendering using homographies. Grubert et al. [63] proposed a framework for enabling user-perspective rendering to augment public displays. Čopič et al. [58, 59], quantified the performance differences between device- and user-perspective rendering in map-related tasks. Mohr et al. [64] developed techniques for an efficient computation of head-tracking techniques needed for user-perspective rendering.
Beyond handheld solutions, whole surfaces such as tables, walls, or body parts can be augmented and interacted with. Often projector-camera systems are used for processing input and creating output on surfaces. Early works included augmenting desks using projectors to support office work of single users [65,66,67] or in collaborative settings [68]. Later the Microsoft Kinect and further commodity depth sensors gave rise to a series of explorations with projector-camera systems.
For example, Xiao et al. [69] introduced WorldKit to allow users to sketch and operate user interface elements on everyday surfaces. Corsten et al. [70] proposed a pipeline for repurposing everyday objects as input devices. Henderson and Feiner also proposed the use of passive haptic feedback from everyday objects to interact with virtual control elements such as virtual buttons [71].
Mistry and Maes [72] utilized a necklace-mounted projector-camera system to sense finger interactions and project content on hands or the environment. Following suite, Harrison et al. [73] introduced OmniTouch, a wearable projector-depth-camera system that allowed for project user interface elements on body parts, such as the hand (e.g., a virtual dial pad), or for augmenting paper using touch.
Further, the idea of interacting with augmented surfaces was later expanded to cover bend surfaces [74], walls [75], and complete living rooms [76] or even urban facades [77, 78]. For example, in IllumiRoom [75], the area around a television was augmented using a projector, after initially scanning it with a depth camera. Possible augmentations included extending the field of view of on-screen content, selectively rendering scene elements of a game, or changing the appearance of the whole environment using non-photorealistic renderings (e.g., cartoon style or a wobble effect). In RoomAlive, multiple projector-depth camera systems were used to create a 3D scan of a living room as well as to spatially track the user’s movement within that room. Users are able to interact with digital elements projected in the room using touch and in-air gestures. Apart from entertainment purposes, this idea was also investigated in productivity scenarios such as collaborative content sharing in meetings [79]. Finally, the augmentation of shape-changing interfaces was also explored [80,81,82]. For example, in Sublimate [82] an actuated pin display was combined with stereoscopic see-through screen to achieve a close coupling between physical and virtual object properties, e.g., for height fields or NURBS surface modeling. InForm [81] expanded this idea to allow both for user input on its pins (e.g., utilizing them as buttons or handles) as well as manipulation of external objects (such as moving a ball across its surface).
In VR, tangible interaction has been explored using various props. The benefit of using tangibles in VR is that a single physical object can be used to represent multiple virtual objects [83], even if they show a certain extend of discrepancy. Simeone et al. [84] presented a model of potential substitutions based on physical objects, such as mugs, bottles, umbrellas, and a torch. Hettiarachchi et al. [85] transferred this idea to AR. Harley et al. [86] proposed a system for authoring narrative experiences in VR using tangible objects.
3 Gesture-Based Interaction
Touch and in-air Gestures and postures make up a large part of interpersonal communication and have also been explored in depth in mixed reality. A driver for gesture-based interaction was the desire for “natural” user interaction, i.e., interaction without the need to explicitly handle artificial control devices but to rely on easy-to-learn interaction with (to the user) invisible input devices. While many gesture sets have been explored by researchers or users [87], it can be debated how “natural” those gesture-based interfaces really are [88], e.g., due to the poor affordances of lectures.
Still, the prevalence of small sensors such as RGB and depth cameras, inertial measurement units, radars or magnetic sensors in mobile devices and AR as well as VR HMDs, and continuing advances in hand [28, 29], head [89], and body pose estimation [90,91,92,93,94,95,96] gave rise to a wide variety of gesture-based interaction techniques being explored for mixed reality.
For mobile devices research began investigating options for interaction next to [97], above [98, 99], behind [100, 101], across [102,103,104,105], or around [106, 107] the device.
The additional modalities are either substituting or complementing the devices’ capabilities. These approaches typically relied on modifying existing devices using a variety of sensing techniques, which can limit their deployment to mass audiences. Hence, researchers started to investigate the use of unmodified devices. Nandakumar et al. [108] proposed the use of the internal microphones of mobiles to determine the location of finger movements on surfaces but cannot support mid-air interaction. Song et al. [109] enabled in-air gestures using the front and back facing cameras of unmodified mobile devices. With Surround See, Yang et al. [110] modified the front-facing camera of a mobile phone with an omnidirectional lens, extending its field of view to 360∘ horizontally. They showcased different application areas, including peripheral environment, object, and activity detection, including hand gestures and pointing, but did not comment on the recognition accuracy. In GlassHands, it was demonstrated how the input space around a device can be extended by using a built-in front-facing camera of an unmodified handheld device and some reflective glasses, like sunglasses, ski goggles, or visors [111]. This work was later extended to work with eye reflections [112, 113].
While being explored since the mid-1990s in tabletop-based AR [114,115,116], for handheld AR, vision-based finger and hand tracking became popular since the mid-2000s [117,118,119,120]. Yusof et al. [121] provide a survey on the various flavors of gesture-based interaction in handheld AR, including marker-based and marker-less tracking of fingers or whole hands.
An early example of in-air interaction using AR HMDs is presented by Kolsch et al. [122], who demonstrated finger tracking with a head-mounted camera. Xiao et al. [123] showed how to incorporate touch gestures on everyday surfaces in to the Microsoft HoloLens. Beyond hand and finger tracking, full-body tracking using head-mounted cameras was also explored [124]. Also, reconstruction of facial gestures, e.g., for reenactment purposes, when wearing HMDs has gained increased interest [125,126,127,128].
Further solutions for freehand interaction were also proposed, including a wrist-worn gloveless sensor [129], swept frequency capacitive sensing [130], an optical mouse sensor attached to a finger [131], or radar-based sensing [132].
Most AR and VR in-air interactions typically aim at using unsupported hands. Hence, to enable reliable selection, targets are designed to be sufficiently large and spaced apart [133]. Also, while the addition of hand tracking to modern AR and VR HMDs allows for easy access to in-air gestures, the accuracy of those spatial tracking solutions is still significantly lower than dedicated lab-based external tracking systems [134].
Besides interaction with handheld or head-worn devices, also whole environments such as rooms can be equipped with sensors to facilitate gesture-based interaction [135,136,137].
In VR, off-the-shelf controllers were also appropriated to reconstruct human poses in real time [138, 139].
4 Pen-Based Interaction
In-air interactions in AR and VR typically make use of unsupported hands or controllers designed for gaming. In addition, pens (often in combination with tablets as supporting surface) have also been explored as input devices. Szalavári and Gervautz [40] as well as Billinghurst et al. [140] utilized pens for input on physical tablets in AR respectively VR. Watsen et al. [141] used a handheld Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) for operating menus in VR. In the Studierstube frameworks, pens were used to control 2D user interface elements on a PDA in AR. Poupyrev et al. [142] used a pen for notetaking in VR. Gesslein et al. [143] used a pen for supporting spreadsheet interaction in Mobile VR.
Many researches also investigated the use of pens for drawing and modeling. Sachs et al. [144] used an early system of 3D CAD modeling using a pen. Deering [145] used a pen for in-air sketching in a fishtank VR environment. Keeve et al. [146] utilized a brush for expressive painting in a Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE). Encarnacao [147] used a pen and pad for sketching in VR on top of an interactive table. Fiorentino et al. [148] explored the use of pens in mid-air for CAD applications in VR. Xin et al. [149] enabled the creation of 3D sketches using the pen and tablet interaction in handheld AR. Yee et al. [150] used a pen-line device along a VST HMD for in situ sketching in AR. Gasquez et al. [151, 152], Arora et al. [153], and Drey et al. [154] noted the benefits of supporting both free-form in-air sketching and on a supporting 2D surface in AR and VR. Suzuki et al. [155] expanded previous sketching applications for AR with dynamic and responsive graphics, e.g., to support physical simulations.
The performance of pen-based input was also investigated in VR. Bowman and Wingrave [156] compared pen and tablet input for menu selection against floating menus and a pinch-based menu system and found that the pen and tablet interaction was significantly faster. Teather and Stuerzlinger [157] compared pen-based input with mouse input for target selection in a fishtank VR environment and found that 3D pointing was inferior to 2D pointing when targets where rendered stereoscopically. Arora et al. [158] compared pen-based mid-air painting with surface-supported painting and found supporting evidence that accuracy improved using a physical drawing surface. Pham et al. [159] indicated that pens significantly outperform controllers for input in AR and VR and is comparable to mouse-based input for target selection. Batmaz et al. explored different pen grip styles for target selection in VR [160].
5 Gaze-Based Interaction
Besides input using touch input gestures or handhold input devices, gaze has also been explored as input modality in mixed reality.
Duchowski [161] presents a review of 30 years of gaze-based interaction, in which gaze-based interaction is categorized within a taxonomy that splits interaction into four forms, namely, diagnostic (off-line measurement), active (selection, look to shoot), passive (foveated rendering, a.k.a. gaze-contingent displays), and expressive (gaze synthesis).
For VR, Mine [162] proposed the use of gaze-directed steering and look-at menus in 1995. Tanriverdi and Jacob [163] highlighted that VR can benefit from gaze tracking. They stated that physical effort can be minimized through gaze, and user’s natural eye movement can be employed to perform interactions in VR (e.g., with distant objects). They also show that a proposed heuristic gaze selection technique outperforms virtual hand-based interaction in terms of task-completion time. Cournia et al. [164] found that dwell-time-based selection was slower than manual ray-pointing. Duchowski et al. [165] presented software techniques for binocular eye tracking within VR as well as their application to aircraft inspection training. Specifically, they presented means for integrating eye trackers into a VR framework, novel 3D calibration techniques, and techniques for eye-movement analysis in 3D space. In 2020, Burova et al. [166] also utilized eye-gaze analysis in industrial tasks. They used VR to develop AR solutions for maintenance tasks and collected gaze data to elicit comments from industry experts on the usefulness of the AR simulation. Zeleznik et al. [167] investigated gaze interaction for 3D pointing, movement, menu selection, and navigation (orbiting and flying) in VR. They introduced “Lazy” interactions that minimize hand movements, “Helping Hand” techniques in which gaze augments hand-based techniques, as well as “Hands Down” techniques in which the hand can operate a separate input device. Piumsomboon et al. [168] presented three novel eye-gaze-based interaction techniques for VR: Duo-Reticles, an eye-gaze selection technique based on eye-gaze and inertial reticles; Radial Pursuit, a smooth pursuit-based technique for cluttered object; and Nod and Roll, a head-gesture-based interaction based on the vestibulo-ocular reflex.
6 Haptic Interaction
Auditory and visual channels are widely addressed sensory channels in AR and VR systems. Still, human experiences can be enriched greatly through touch and physical motions. Haptic devices enable the interaction between humans and computers by rendering mechanical signals to stimulate human touch and kinesthetic channels. The field of haptics has a long standing tradition and incorporates expertise from various fields such as robotics, psychology, biology, and computer science. They also play a role in diverse application domains such as gaming [169], industry [170], education [171], and medicine [172,173,174]. Haptic interactions are based on cutaneous/tactile (i.e., skin-related) and kinesthetic/proprioceptive (i.e., related to the body pose) sensations. Various devices have been proposed for both sensory channels, varying in form factor, weight, mobility, comfort as well as the fidelity, duration, and intensity of haptic feedback. For recent surveys, we refer to [175, 176].
In VR, the use of haptic feedback has a long tradition [177]. A commonly used active haptic device for stationary VR environment with a limited movement range of the users’ hands is the PHANToM, which is a grounded system (or manipulandum) offering a high fidelity but low portability. Hence, over time substantial research efforts have been made in creating mobile haptic devices for VR [176].
In AR, the challenge in using haptics is that the display typically occludes real objects the user might want to interact with. Also, in OST displays, the haptic device is still visible behind virtual objects rendered on the display. When using VST displays, the haptic device might be removed by inpainting [178].
Besides active haptic systems, researchers have also investigated the use of low-fidelity physical objects to augment virtual environments in passive haptics. An early example of this type of haptic feedback is presented by Insko [179], who showed that passive haptics can improve both sense of presence and spatial knowledge training transfer in a virtual environment.
A challenge when using passive haptic feedback, besides a mismatch in surface fidelity, is that the objects used for feedback are typically static. To mitigate this problem, two strategies can be employed. First, the objects themselves can be moved during interaction by mounting them on robotic platforms such as robots [180, 181] or by human operators [182, 183]. Second, the movements of the user themselves can be redirected to a certain extent by decoupling the physical motion of a user from the perceived visual motion. This can be done with individual body parts such as hands [184, 185] or the whole body using redirected walking techniques [186, 187].
7 Multimodal Interaction
While, often, AR and VR systems offer single input channels along with audio-visual output, rich interaction opportunities arise when considering the combination of further input and output modalities. Complementing the strengths of multiple channels can lead to increased user experiences. While multimodal (or multisensory) output is typically concerned with increasing the immersion and sense of presence in a scene, multimodal input typically tries to increase the efficiency of user interaction with a AR or VR system. For overviews about multimodal interaction beyond AR and VR, we refer to [188, 189]. Nizam et al. also provided a recent overview about multimodal interaction for specifically for AR [190].
The use of multisensory output such as the combination of audiovisual output with smell and touch has been shown to increase presence and perceived realism in VR [191, 192] and has been employed as early as in the 1960s [193]. Gallace et al. discussed both benefits and challenges when utilizing multiple output modes in VR [194]. Extrasensory experiences [195, 196] (such as making temperature visible through infrared cameras) have also been explored [197].
In AR, Narumi et al. [198] showed that increasing the perceived size of a real cookie using AR also increased the feeling of satiety. Narumi et al. [199] also created a multisensory eating experience in AR by changing the apparent look and smell of cookies. Koizumi et al. [200] could modulate the perceived food texture using a bone-conducting speaker. Ban et al. [201] showed that it is possible to influence fatigue while handling physical objects by affecting their perceived weight by modulating their size in AR.
Regarding multimodal input in VR, the combination of speech and gestures is a commonly used input combination. In 1980, Bolt [202] introduced put-that-there. Users could immerse themselves in a Media Room to place objects within that environment through a combination of gestures and speech. In 1989, Hauptmann [203] showed that users preferred a combination of speech and gestures for the spatial manipulation of 3D object. Cohen et al. [204] used a handheld computer along with speech and gesture for supporting map-based tasks on a virtual workbench. LaViola [205] used hand-based interaction (sensed through a data glove) along with speech for interior design in VR. Ciger et al. [206] combined speech with pointing of a magic wand on an immersive wall to create “magical” experiences. Burdea et al. [207] presented an early survey on VR input and output devices as well as an overview about studies that quantify the potentials of several modalities on simulation realism and immersion. Prange et al. [208] studied the use of speech and pen-based interaction in a medical setting.
In AR, Olwal et al. [209] combined speech and gestures for object selection. Kaiser et al. [210] extended that work by introducing mutual disambiguation to improve selection robustness. Similarly, Heidemann et al. [211] presented an AR system for online acquisition of visual knowledge and retrieval of memorized objects using speech and deictic (pointing) gestures. Kolsch et al. [122] combined speech input with gestures in an outdoor AR environment. Piumsomboon [212] studied the use of gestures and speech vs gestures only for object manipulation in AR. They found that the multimodal was not substantially better than gesture-only-based interaction for most tasks (but object scaling). This indicates that multimodality per se is not always beneficial for interaction but needs to be carefully designed to suit the task at hand. Rosa et al. [213] discussed different notions of AR and Mixed Reality as well as the role of multimodality. Wilson et al. [214] used a projector-camera system mounted on a pan-tilt platform for multimodal interaction in a physical room using a combination of speech and gestures.
The combination of touch and 3D movements has also been explored in VR and AR. Tsang et al. [215] introduced the Boom Chameleon, touch display mounted on a tracked mechanical boom, and used joint gesture, speech, and viewpoint input in a 3D annotation application. Benko et al. [216] combined on-surface and in-air gestures for content transfer between a 2D screen and 3D space. Mossel et al. [217] and Marzo et al. [218] combined touch input and handheld device movement for 3D object manipulations in mobile AR. Polvi et al. [219] utilized touch and the pose of a handheld touchscreen for reminded object positioning in mobile AR. Grandi et al. [220] studied the use of touch and the orientation of a smartphone for collaborative object manipulation in VR. Surale et al. [221] explored the use of touch input on a spatially tracked tablet for object manipulations in VR. In VR, Menzner et al. [222] utilized combined in-air and touch movements on and above smartphones for efficient navigation of multiscale information spaces. Several authors combined pen input both in mid-air as well as on touch surfaces to enhance sketching in VR [154] and AR [151,152,153].
Also, the combination of eye-gaze with other modalities such as mid-air gestures and head movements has seen recent interest for interaction in AR and VR. For example, Pfeuffer et al. [223] investigated the combination of gaze and gestures in VR. They described Gaze + Pinch, which integrates eye gaze to select 3D objects, and indirect freehand gestures to manipulate those objects. They explored this technique for object selection, manipulation, scene navigation, menu interaction, and image zooming. Similarly, Ryu et al. [224] introduced a combined grasp eye-pointing technique for 3D object selection. Kyto et al. [225] combined head and eye gaze for improving target selection in AR. Sidenmark and Gellersen [226, 227] studied different techniques combining eye and head pointing in VR. Gesslein et al. [143] combined pen-based input with gaze tracking for efficient interaction across multiple spreadsheets. Biener et al. [228] utilized gaze and touch interaction to navigate virtual multi-display environments.
8 Multi-Display Interaction
Traditionally, output of interactive systems is often limited to a single display, ranging from smartwatches to gigapixel displays. However, multi-display environments from the desktop to gigapixel displays are also increasingly common for knowledge work and complex tasks such as financial trading or factory management as well as for social applications such as second screen TV experiences [229]. Surveys about multi-display systems and distributed user interfaces have been presented by Elmqvist [230], Grubert et al. [229, 231, 232], and Brudy et al. [233].
Augmented reality has the potential to enhance interaction with both small and large displays by adding an unlimited virtual screen space or other complementing characteristics like mobility. However, this typically comes at the cost of a lower-display fidelity compared with a physical panel display (such as lower resolution, lower contrast, or a smaller physical field of view in OST HMDs).
In 1991, Feiner et al. [234] proposed a hybrid display combining a traditional desktop monitor with an OST HMD and explored a window manager application. Butz et al. [235] combined multiple physical displays ranging from handheld to wall-sized ones with OST HMDs in a multi-user collaborative environment. Baudisch et al. [236] used a lower-resolution projector to facilitate focus and context interaction on a desktop computer. MacWilliams et al. [237] proposed a multi-user game in which players could interact with a tabletop, laptop, and handheld displays. Serrano et al. [238] proposed to use an OST HMD to facilitate content transfer between multiple physical displays on a desktop. Boring et al. [239] used a smartphone to facilitate content transfer between multiple stationary displays. They later extended the work to manipulate screen content on stationary displays [240] and interactive facades [241] using smartphones. Raedle et al. [104] supported interaction across multiple mobile displays through a top-mounted depth camera. Grubert et al. [105, 242] used face tracking to allow user interaction across multiple mobile devices, which could be dynamically re-positioned. They also proposed to utilize face tracking [242, 243] to create a cubic VR display with user-perspective rendering. Butscher et al. [244] explored the combination of VST HMDs with a tabletop displays for information visualization. Reipschläger et al. [245, 246] combined a high-resolution horizontal desktop display with an OST HMD for design activities. Gugenheimer et al. [247] introduced face touch, which allows interacting with display-fixed user interfaces (using direct touch) and world-fixed content (using raycasting). This work was later extended to utilize three touch displays around the user’s head [248]. Gugenheimer et al. also introduced ShareVR [249], which enabled multi-user and multi-display interactions across users inside and outside of VR.
A number of systems also concentrated on the combination of HMDs and handheld as well body-worn displays, such as smartwatches, smartphones, and tablets in mobile contexts. Here, typically the head-mounted display extends the field of view of the handheld display to provide a larger virtual field of view. In MultiFi [250], an OST HMD provides contextual information for higher-resolution touch-enabled displays (smartwatch and smartphone). The authors explored different spatial reference systems such as body-aligned, device-aligned, and side-by-side modes. Similar explorations have followed suit using video-see-through HMDs [251], an extended set of interaction techniques [252], using smartwatches [253,254,255], or with a focus on understanding smartphone-driven window management techniques for HMDs [256].
Purely virtual multi-display environments have also been explored in AR and VR. In 1993, Feiner et al. [257] introduced head-surrounding and world reference frames for positioning 3D windows in VR. In 1998, Billinghurst et al. [258] introduced the spatial display metaphor, in which information windows are arranged on a virtual cylinder around the user. Since then, virtual information displays have been explored in various reference systems, such as world-, object-, head-, body-, or device-referenced [259]. Specifically, interacting with windows in body-centered reference systems [260] has attracted attention, for instance, to allow fast access to virtual items [261, 262], mobile multi-tasking [263, 264], and visual analytics [265]. Lee et al. [266] investigated positioning a window in 3D space using a continuous hand gesture. Petford et al. [267] compared the selection performance of mouse and raycast pointing in full coverage displays (not in VR). Jetter et al. [268] proposed to interactively design a space with various display form factors in VR.
9 Interaction Using Keyboard and Mouse
Being the de facto standard for human-computer interaction in personal computing environments for decades, standard input peripherals such as keyboard and mouse, while initially used in projection-based CAVE environments, were soon replaced by special-purpose input devices and associated interaction techniques for AR and VR (see previous sections). This was partly due to the constraints of those input devices, making them challenging to use for spatial input with six degrees of freedom. Physical keyboards typically support solely symbolic input. Standard computer mice are restricted to two-dimensional pointing (along with button clicks and a scroll-wheel). However, with modern knowledge workers still relying on the efficiency of those physical input devices, researchers revisited how to use them within AR and VR.
With increasing interest in supporting knowledge work using AR and VR HMDs [269,270,271,272], keyboard and mouse interaction drew the attention of several researchers.
The keyboard was designed for the rapid entrance of symbolic information, and although it may not be the best mechanism developed for the task, its familiarity that enabled good performance by users without considerable learning efforts kept it almost unchanged for many years. However, when interacting with spatial data, they are perceived as falling short of providing efficient input capabilities [273], even though they are successfully used in many 3D environments (such as CAD or gaming [274]), can be modified to allow 3D interaction [275, 276], or can outperform 3D input devices in specific tasks such as 3D object placement [277, 278]. Also for 3D object manipulation in AR and VR, they were found to be not significantly slower than a dedicated 3D input device [279].
In VR, a number of works investigated the costs of using physical keyboards for standard text entry tasks. Grubert et al. [280, 281], Knierim et al. [282], and McGill et al. [283] found physical keyboards to be mostly usable for text entry in immersive head-mounted display-based VR but varied in their observations about the performance loss when transferring text entry from the physical to the virtual world. Pham et al. [284] deployed a physical keyboard on a tray to facilitate mobile text entry. Apart from standard QWERTY keyboards, a variety of further text entry input devices and techniques have been proposed for VR; see [7].
Besides using unmodified physical keyboards, there have been several approaches in extending the basic input capabilities of physical keyboard beyond individual button presses. Specifically, input on, above, and around the keyboard surface have been proposed using acoustic [285, 286], pressure [287,288,289], proximity [290], and capacitive sensors [291,292,293,294,295,296], cameras [297,298,299], body-worn orientation sensors [300], or even unmodified physical keyboards [301, 302]. Besides sensing, actuation of keys has also been explored [303]. Embedding capacitive sensing into keyboards has been studied by various researchers. It lends itself to detect finger events on and slightly above keys and can be integrated into mass-manufacturing processes. Rekimoto et al. [294] investigated capacitive sensing on a keypad, but not a full keyboard. Habib et al. [292] and Tung et al. [293] proposed to use capacitive sensing embedded into a full physical keyboard to allow touchpad operation on the keyboard surface. Tung et al. [293] developed a classifier to automatically distinguish between text entry and touchpad mode on the keyboard. Shi et al. developed microgestures on capacitive sensing keys [295, 304]. Similarly, Zheng et al. [305, 306] explored various interaction mappings for finger and hand postures. Sekimoro et al. focused on exploring gestural interactions on the space bar [307]. Extending the idea of LCD-programmable keyboards [308], Block et al. extended the output capabilities of touch-sensitive, capacitive-sensing keyboard by using a top-mounted projector [296]. Several commercial products have also augmented physical keyboards with additional, partly interactive, displays (e.g., Apple Touch Bar, Logitech G19 [309], Razer DeathStalker Ultimate [310]).
Maiti et al. [311] explored the use of randomized keyboard layouts on physical keyboards using an OST display. Wang et al. [312] explored the use of an augmented reality extension to a desktop-based analytics environment. Specifically, they added a stereoscopic data view using a HoloLens to a traditional 2D desktop environment and interacted with keyboard and mouse across both the HoloLens and the desktop.
Schneider et al. [313] explored a rich design space of using physical keyboards in VR beyond text entry. Specifically, they proposed three different input mappings: 1 key to 1 action (standard mode of interaction using keyboards), multiple keys to a single action (e.g., mapping a large virtual button to several physical buttons), as well as mapping a physical key to a coordinate in a two-dimensional input space. Similarly, they proposed three different output mappings: augmenting individual keys (e.g., showing an emoji on a key), augmenting on and around the keyboard (e.g., adding user-interface elements on top of the keyboard such as virtual sliders), as well as transforming the keyboard geometry itself (e.g., only displaying single buttons or replacing the keyboard by other visuals). Those ideas were later also considered in the domain of immersive analytics [314].
Mouse-based pointing has been studied in depth outside of AR and VR for pointing on single monitors [315] as well as multi-display environments [316,317,318]. However, it has been found that stand 2D mouse devices do not adapt well to multi-display interaction [319], an issue which is also relevant for AR and VR. Consequently, standard mice have been modified in various ways to add degrees of freedom. For example, Villar et al. [320] explored multiple form factors for multi-touch-enabled mice. Other researchers have added additional mouse sensors to support yawing [321, 322], pressure sensors for discrete selection [323, 324] to allow for three instead of two degrees of freedom. Three-dimensional interaction was enabled using Rockin’Mouse [325] and the VideoMouse [326]. Both works added a dome below the device to facilitate 3D interaction. Steed and Slater [327] proposed to add a dome on top of the mouse rather than below. Further form factors have also been proposed to facilitate pointing-based interaction in 3D [328, 329]. Recently, researchers also worked on unifying efficient input both in 2D and 3D [276, 330].
Standard mice using a scroll wheel can also be efficiently used for 3D object selection when being combined with gaze-tracking in virtual multi-display environments [228]. For example, in the Windows Mixed Reality Toolkit [331], the x and y movements of the mouse can be mapped to the x and y movements on a proxy shape, such as a cylinder (or any object on that cylinder, like a window). The scroll wheel is used for changing the pointer depth (in discrete steps). The x and y movements can be limited to the current field of view of the user to allow for acceptable control to display ratios. The user gaze can then be used to change the view on different regions of the proxy shape.
10 Virtual Agents
Virtual agents can be considered as “intelligent” software programs performing tasks on behalf of users based on questions or commands. While it can be argued what “intelligent” really means in this context, a widely accepted characteristic of this “intelligence” is context-aware behavior [332, 333]. This allows an agent to interact with the user and environment through sensing and acting in an independent and dynamic way. The behavior is typically well defined and allows to trigger actions based on a set of conditions [334].
The rise of voice assistants (or conversational agents) [335], which interact with users through natural language, has brought media attention and a prevalence in various areas, such as home automation, in-car operation, automation of call centers, education, and training [336].
In AR and VR, virtual agents often use more than a single modality for input and output. Complementary to voice in an output, virtual agents in AR and VR can typically react to body gestures or postures or even facial expressions of the users. Due to their graphical representations, those agents are embodied in the virtual world. The level of embodiment of a virtual agent has been studied for decades [337, 338]. For example it has been shown that the effect of adding a face was larger than the effect of visual realism (both photo-realism and behavioral realism of the avatar). In VR, the level of visual realism of the virtual agent is typically matched to the visual realism of the environment. In contrast, in AR, there is often a noticeable difference between the agent representation and the physical scene, and those effects are still underexplored [339]. Hantono et al. reviewed the use of virtual agents in AR in educational settings. Norouzi et al. provided review of the convergence between AR and virtual agents [340].
Specifically for AR, Maes et al. [341] introduced a magic mirror AR system, in which humans could interact with a dog through both voice and gestures. Similarly, Cavazza et al. [342] allowed participants to interact with virtual agents in an interactive storytelling environment. MacIntyre et al. [343] used pre-recorded videos of physical actors to let users interact with them using OST HMDs. Anabuki et al. [344] highlighted that having virtual agents and users share the same physical environment is the most distinguishing aspect of virtual agents in AR. They introduced Welbo, an animated virtual agent, which is aware of its physical environment and can avoid standing in the user’s way. Barakony et al. [345] presented “AR Puppet” as system that explored the context-aware animated agents within AR in investigated aspects like visualization, appearance, or behaviors. They investigated AR-specific aspects such as the ability of the agent to avoid physical obstacles or its ability to interact with physical objects. Based on this initial research, the authors explored various applications [346, 347]. Chekhlov et al. [348] presented a system based on Simultanteous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) [349], in which the virtual agent had to move in a physical environment. Blum et al. [350] introduced an outdoor AR game which included virtual agents. Kotranza et al. [351, 352] used a tangible physical representation of a human that could be touched, along with a virtual visual representation in a medical education context. They called this dual representation mixed reality humans and argued that affording touch between a human and a virtual agent enables interpersonal scenarios.
11 Summary and Outlook
This chapter served as an overview of a wide variety of interaction techniques MR, covering both device- and prop-based input such as tangible interaction and pen and keyboard input as well as utilizing human effector-based input such as spatial gestures, gaze, or speech.
The historical development of the presented techniques was closely coupled to the available sensing capabilities. For example, in order to recognize props such as paddles [18], they had to be large enough in order to let fiducials be recognized by low-resolution cameras. With the advancement of computer vision-based sensing, fiducials could become smaller, change their appearance to natural-looking images, or be omitted altogether (e.g., for hand and finger tracking). Further, the combination of more than one modality became possible by increasing computational capabilities of MR systems.
In the future, we expect an ongoing trend of both minimizing the size and price of sensors, as well as the ubiquitous availability of those sensors, in dedicated computing devices, in everyday objects [353], on [354] or even in the human body itself [355]. Hence, MR interaction techniques will play a central role on shaping the future of both pervasive computing [333] as well as augmenting humans with (potentially) superhuman capabilities (e.g., motor capabilities [356, 357], cognitive and perceptual capabilities [358]. Besides technological and interaction challenges along the way, the field of MR interaction will greatly benefit from including both social and ethical implications when designing future interfaces.
References
Bowman, D., Kruijff, E., LaViola Jr, J.J., Poupyrev, I.P.: 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice, CourseSmart eTextbook. Addison-Wesley, New York (2004)
Dang, N.-T.: A survey and classification of 3D pointing techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Research, Innovation and Vision for the Future, pp. 71–80 (2007)
Argelaguet, F., Andujar, C.: A survey of 3D object selection techniques for virtual environments. Comput. Graph. 37(3), 121–136 (2013)
Singh, H., Singh, J.: Object acquisition and selection in human computer interaction systems: a review. Int. J. Intell. Syst. Appl. Eng. 7(1), 19–29 (2019)
Mendes, D., Caputo, F.M., Giachetti, A., Ferreira, A., Jorge, J.: A survey on 3D virtual object manipulation: From the desktop to immersive virtual environments. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 38, pp. 21–45 (2019)
Jankowski, J., Hachet, M.: A Survey of Interaction Techniques for Interactive 3D Environments (2013)
Dube, T.J., Arif, A.S.: Text entry in virtual reality: A comprehensive review of the literature. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 419–437 (2019)
Dachselt, R., Hübner, A.: Three-dimensional menus: A survey and taxonomy. Comput. Graph. 31(1), 53–65 (2007)
Berthaut, F.: 3D interaction techniques for musical expression. J. New Music Res. 49(1), 1–13 (2019)
Riecke, B.E., LaViola Jr, J.J., Kruijff, E.: 3D user interfaces for virtual reality and games: 3D selection, manipulation, and spatial navigation. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2018 Courses, pp. 1–94 (2018)
Büschel, W., Chen, J., Dachselt, R., Drucker, S., Dwyer, T., Görg, C., Isenberg, T., Kerren, A., North, C., Stuerzlinger, W.: Interaction for immersive analytics. In: Immersive Analytics, pp. 95–138. Springer, Berlin (2018)
Hand, C.: A survey of 3D interaction techniques. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 16, pp. 269–281 (1997)
Lee, L.-H., Hui, P.: Interaction methods for smart glasses: A survey. IEEE Access 6, 28712–28732 (2018)
Ullmer, B., Ishii, H.: The metaDESK: models and prototypes for tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings of Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 97). ACM, New York (1997)
Shaer, O., Hornecker, E.: Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact. 3(1–2), 1–137 (2010)
Underkoffler, J., Ishii, H.: Illuminating light: an optical design tool with a luminous-tangible interface. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 542–549 (1998)
Underkoffler, J., Ishii, H.: URP: a luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 386–393 (1999)
Kato, H., Billinghurst, M., Poupyrev, I., Imamoto, K., Tachibana, K.: Virtual object manipulation on a table-top AR environment. In: Proceedings IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Augmented Reality (ISAR 2000), pp. 111–119 (2000)
Fjeld, M., Voegtli, B.M.: Augmented chemistry: An interactive educational workbench. In: Proceedings. International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 259–321 (2002)
Billinghurst, M., Grasset, R., Looser, J.: Designing augmented reality interfaces. ACM Siggraph Comput. Graphics 39(1), 17–22 (2005)
Regenbrecht, H.T., Wagner, M., Baratoff, G.: Magicmeeting: A collaborative tangible augmented reality system. Virtual Reality 6(3), 151–166 (2002)
Lee, G.A., Kim, G.J., Billinghurst, M.: Interaction design for tangible augmented reality applications. In: Emerging Technologies of Augmented Reality: Interfaces and Design, pp. 261–282. IGI Global, New York (2007)
Bimber, O., Raskar, R.: Spatial Augmented Reality: Merging Real and Virtual Worlds. CRC Press, New York (2005)
Hainich, R.R., Bimber, O.: Displays: Fundamentals and Applications. CRC Press, New York (2016)
Eiberger, A., Kristensson, P.O., Mayr, S., Kranz, M., Grubert, J.: Effects of depth layer switching between an optical see-through head-mounted display and a body-proximate display. In: Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, pp. 1–9 (2019)
Kato, H.: Inside ARToolKit. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Workshop on Augmented Reality Toolkit (2007)
Salinas, R.M.: ArUco: A Minimal Library for Augmented Reality Applications Based on OpenCV (2012)
Barsoum, E.: Articulated Hand Pose Estimation Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06195 (2016)
Li, R., Liu, Z., Tan, J.: A survey on 3D hand pose estimation: Cameras, methods, and datasets. Pattern Recogn. 93, 251–272 (2019)
Rahman, M.M., Tan, Y., Xue, J., Lu, K.: Recent advances in 3D object detection in the era of deep neural networks: A survey. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 29, 2947–2962 (2019)
Guo, Y., Wang, H., Hu, Q., Liu, H., Liu, L., Bennamoun, M.: Deep Learning for 3D Point Clouds: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.12033 (2019)
Wu, Y.-C., Chan, L., Lin, W.-C.: Tangible and visible 3D object reconstruction in augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 26–36 (2019)
Bier, E.A., Stone, M.C., Pier, K., Buxton, W., DeRose, T.D.: Toolglass and magic lenses: the see-through interface. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 73–80 (1993)
Tominski, C., Gladisch, S., Kister, U., Dachselt, R., Schumann, H.: A survey on interactive lenses in visualization. In: EuroVis (STARs) (2014)
Tominski, C., Gladisch, S., Kister, U., Dachselt, R., Schumann, H.: Interactive lenses for visualization: An extended survey. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 36, pp. 173–200 (2017)
Spindler, M., Dachselt, R.: PaperLens: advanced magic lens interaction above the tabletop. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, p. 7 (2009)
Spindler, M., Tominski, C., Schumann, H., Dachselt, R.: Tangible views for information visualization. In: ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pp. 157–166 (2010)
Steimle, J., Jordt, A., Maes, P.: Flexpad: highly flexible bending interactions for projected handheld displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 237–246 (2013)
Holman, D., Vertegaal, R., Altosaar, M., Troje, N., Johns, D.: Paper windows: interaction techniques for digital paper. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 591–599 (2005)
Szalavári, Z., Gervautz, M.: The personal interaction Panel–a two-handed interface for augmented reality. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 16, pp. C335–C346 (1997)
Rekimoto, J., Ullmer, B., Oba, H.: DataTiles: a modular platform for mixed physical and graphical interactions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 269–276 (2001)
Brown, L.D., Hua, H.: Magic lenses for augmented virtual environments. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 26(4), 64–73 (2006)
Oh, J.-y., Hua, H.: User evaluations on form factors of tangible magic lenses. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 23–32 (2006)
Schmalstieg, D., Encarnação, L.M., Szalavári, Z.: Using transparent props for interaction with the virtual table. SI3D 99, 147–153 (1999)
Looser, J., Grasset, R., Billinghurst, M.: A 3D flexible and tangible magic lens in augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2007 6th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 51–54 (2007)
Brown, L.D., Hua, H., Gao, C.: A widget framework for augmented interaction in SCAPE. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 1–10 (2003)
Issartel, P., Besançon, L., Isenberg, T., Ammi, M.: A tangible volume for portable 3d interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct), pp. 215–220 (2016)
Chan, L.K., Lau, H.Y.: MagicPad: the projection based 3D user interface. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. (IJIDeM) 6(2), 75–81 (2012)
Grubert, J., Pahud, M., Grasset, R., Schmalstieg, D., Seichter, H.: The utility of magic lens interfaces on handheld devices for touristic map navigation. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 18, 88–103 (2015)
Leigh, S.-w., Schoessler, P., Heibeck, F., Maes, P., Ishii, H.: THAW: tangible interaction with see-through augmentation for smartphones on computer screens. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 89–96 (2015)
Kljun, M., Pucihar, K.Č., Alexander, J., Weerasinghe, M., Campos, C., Ducasse, J., Kopacin, B., Grubert, J., Coulton, P., Čelar, M.: Augmentation not duplication: considerations for the design of digitally-augmented comic books. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12 (2019)
Reitmayr, G., Eade, E., Drummond, T.: Localisation and interaction for augmented maps. In: Fourth IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR’05), pp. 120–129 (2005)
Morrison, A., Oulasvirta, A., Peltonen, P., Lemmela, S., Jacucci, G., Reitmayr, G., Näsänen, J., Juustila, A.: Like bees around the hive: a comparative study of a mobile augmented reality map. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1889–1898 (2009)
Reeves, S., Benford, S., O’Malley, C., Fraser, M.: Designing the spectator experience. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 741–750 (2005)
Rico, J., Brewster, S.: Usable gestures for mobile interfaces: evaluating social acceptability. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 887–896 (2010)
Grubert, J., Morrison, A., Munz, H., Reitmayr, G.: Playing it real: magic lens and static peephole interfaces for games in a public space. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 231–240 (2012)
Grubert, J., Schmalstieg, D.: Playing it real again: a repeated evaluation of magic lens and static peephole interfaces in public space. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 99–102 (2013)
Čopič Pucihar, K., Coulton, P., Alexander, J.: Evaluating dual-view perceptual issues in handheld augmented reality: device vs. user perspective rendering. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pp. 381–388 (2013)
Čopič Pucihar, K., Coulton, P., Alexander, J.: The use of surrounding visual context in handheld AR: device vs. user perspective rendering. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 197–206 (2014)
Hill, A., Schiefer, J., Wilson, J., Davidson, B., Gandy, M., MacIntyre, B.: Virtual transparency: Introducing parallax view into video see-through AR. In: Proceedings of the 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 239–240 (2011)
Baričević, D., Lee, C., Turk, M., Höllerer, T., Bowman, D.A.: A hand-held AR magic lens with user-perspective rendering. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 197–206 (2012)
Tomioka, M., Ikeda, S., Sato, K.: Approximated user-perspective rendering in tablet-based augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 21–28 (2013)
Grubert, J., Seichter, H., Schmalstieg, D.: Towards user perspective augmented reality for public displays. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 339–340 (2014)
Mohr, P., Tatzgern, M., Grubert, J., Schmalstieg, D., Kalkofen, D.: Adaptive user perspective rendering for handheld augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), pp. 176–181 (2017)
Wellner, P.: The DigitalDesk calculator: tangible manipulation on a desk top display. In: Proceedings of the 4th annual ACM symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 27–33 (1991)
Wellner, P.: Interacting with paper on the DigitalDesk. Commun. ACM 36(7), 87–96 (1993)
Mackay, W.E., Fayard, A.-L.: Designing interactive paper: lessons from three augmented reality projects. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Augmented Reality: Placing Artificial Objects in Real Scenes: Placing Artificial Objects in Real Scenes, pp. 81–90 (1999)
Rekimoto, J., Saitoh, M.: Augmented surfaces: a spatially continuous work space for hybrid computing environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 378–385 (1999)
Xiao, R., Harrison, C., Hudson, S.E.: WorldKit: rapid and easy creation of ad-hoc interactive applications on everyday surfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 879–888 (2013)
Corsten, C., Avellino, I., Möllers, M., Borchers, J.: Instant user interfaces: repurposing everyday objects as input devices. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pp. 71–80 (2013)
Henderson, S., Feiner, S.: Opportunistic tangible user interfaces for augmented reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 16(1), 4–16 (2010)
Mistry, P., Maes, P.: SixthSense: a wearable gestural interface. In: ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2009 Art Gallery and Emerging Technologies: Adaptation, pp. 85–85 (2009)
Harrison, C., Benko, H., Wilson, A.D.: OmniTouch: wearable multitouch interaction everywhere. In: Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 441–450 (2011)
Benko, H., Jota, R., Wilson, A.: MirageTable: freehand interaction on a projected augmented reality tabletop. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 199–208 (2012)
Jones, B.R., Benko, H., Ofek, E., Wilson, A.D.: IllumiRoom: peripheral projected illusions for interactive experiences. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 869–878 (2013)
Jones, B., Sodhi, R., Murdock, M., Mehra, R., Benko, H., Wilson, A., Ofek, E., MacIntyre, B., Raghuvanshi, N., Shapira, L.: RoomAlive: magical experiences enabled by scalable, adaptive projector-camera units. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 637–644 (2014)
Boring, S., Gehring, S., Wiethoff, A., Blöckner, A.M., Schöning, J., Butz, A.: Multi-user interaction on media facades through live video on mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2721–2724 (2011)
Fischer, P.T., Hornecker, E.: Urban HCI: spatial aspects in the design of shared encounters for media facades. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 307–316 (2012)
Fender, A.R., Benko, H., Wilson, A.: Meetalive: Room-scale omni-directional display system for multi-user content and control sharing. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, pp. 106–115 (2017)
Rasmussen, M.K., Pedersen, E.W., Petersen, M.G., Hornbæk, K.: Shape-changing interfaces: a review of the design space and open research questions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 735–744 (2012)
Follmer, S., Leithinger, D., Olwal, A., Hogge, A., Ishii, H.: inFORM: dynamic physical affordances and constraints through shape and object actuation.. In: Uist, vol. 13, pp. 2501988–2502032 (2013)
Leithinger, D., Follmer, S., Olwal, A., Luescher, S., Hogge, A., Lee, J., Ishii, H.: Sublimate: state-changing virtual and physical rendering to augment interaction with shape displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1441–1450 (2013)
Araujo, B., Jota, R., Perumal, V., Yao, J.X., Singh, K., Wigdor, D.: Snake Charmer: physically enabling virtual objects. In: Proceedings of the TEI’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 218–226 (2016)
Simeone, A.L., Velloso, E., Gellersen, H.: Substitutional reality: Using the physical environment to design virtual reality experiences. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3307–3316 (2015)
Hettiarachchi, A., Wigdor, D.: Annexing reality: Enabling opportunistic use of everyday objects as tangible proxies in augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1957–1967 (2016)
Harley, D., Tarun, A.P., Germinario, D., Mazalek, A.: Tangible vr: Diegetic tangible objects for virtual reality narratives. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 1253–1263 (2017)
Piumsomboon, T., Clark, A., Billinghurst, M., Cockburn, A.: User-defined gestures for augmented reality. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 282–299 (2013)
Norman, D.A.: Natural user interfaces are not natural. Interactions 17(3), 6–10 (2010)
Murphy-Chutorian, E., Trivedi, M.M.: Head pose estimation in computer vision: A survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 31(4), 607–626 (2008)
Chen, L., Wei, H., Ferryman, J.: A survey of human motion analysis using depth imagery. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 34(15), 1995–2006 (2013)
Liu, Z., Zhu, J., Bu, J., Chen, C.: A survey of human pose estimation: the body parts parsing based methods. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 32, 10–19 (2015)
Gong, W., Zhang, X., Gonzàlez, J., Sobral, A., Bouwmans, T., Tu, C., Zahzah, E.-h.: Human pose estimation from monocular images: A comprehensive survey. Sensors 16(12), 1966 (2016)
Sarafianos, N., Boteanu, B., Ionescu, B., Kakadiaris, I.A.: 3d human pose estimation: A review of the literature and analysis of covariates. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 152, 1–20 (2016)
Dang, Q., Yin, J., Wang, B., Zheng, W.: Deep learning based 2d human pose estimation: A survey. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 24(6), 663–676 (2019)
Caserman, P., Garcia-Agundez, A., Goebel, S.: A Survey of Full-Body Motion Reconstruction in Immersive Virtual Reality Applications. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 26(10), 3089–3108 (2019)
Chen, Y., Tian, Y., He, M.: Monocular human pose estimation: A survey of deep learning-based methods. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 192, 102897 (2020)
Oakley, I., Lee, D.: Interaction on the edge: offset sensing for small devices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14), pp. 169–178. ACM, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557138
Kratz, S., Rohs, M.: Hoverflow: exploring around-device interaction with IR distance sensors. In: Proceedings of the MobileHCI ’09, p. 42 (2009)
Freeman, E., Brewster, S., Lantz, V.: Towards usable and acceptable above-device interactions. In: Proceedings of the MobileHCI ’14, pp. 459–464. ACM, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2634215
De Luca, A., von Zezschwitz, E., Nguyen, n.d.H., Maurer, M.-E., Rubegni, E., Scipioni, M.P., Langheinrich, M.: Back-of-device authentication on smartphones. In: Proceedings of the CHI ’13, pp. 2389–2398. ACM, New York (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481330
Wigdor, D., Forlines, C., Baudisch, P., Barnwell, J., Shen, C.: Lucid touch: a see-through mobile device. In: Proceedings of the UIST ’07, pp. 269–278. ACM, New York (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1294211.1294259
Schmidt, D., Seifert, J., Rukzio, E., Gellersen, H.: A cross-device interaction style for mobiles and surfaces. In: Proceedings of the DIS ’12 (2012)
Chen, X., Grossman, T., Wigdor, D.J., Fitzmaurice, G.: Duet: exploring joint interactions on a smart phone and a smart watch. In: Proceedings of the CHI ’14, pp. 159–168 (2014)
Rädle, R., Jetter, H.-C., Marquardt, N., Reiterer, H., Rogers, Y.: Huddlelamp: Spatially-aware mobile displays for ad-hoc around-the-table collaboration. In: Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pp. 45–54 (2014)
Grubert, J., Kränz, M.: Towards ad hoc mobile multi-display environments on commodity mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), pp. 461–462 (2017)
Zhao, C., Chen, K.-Y., Aumi, M.T.I., Patel, S., Reynolds, M.S.: SideSwipe: Detecting In-air Gestures Around Mobile Devices Using Actual GSM Signal. In: Proceedings of the UIST ’14, pp. 527–534. ACM, New York (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647380
Xiao, R., Lew, G., Marsanico, J., Hariharan, D., Hudson, S., Harrison, C.: Toffee: enabling ad hoc, around-device interaction with acoustic time-of-arrival correlation. In: Proceedings of the MobileHCI ’14, pp. 67–76 (2014)
Nandakumar, R., Iyer, V., Tan, D., Gollakota, S.: Fingerio: Using active sonar for fine-grained finger tracking. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1515–1525 (2016)
Song, J., Sörös, G., Pece, F., Fanello, S.R., Izadi, S., Keskin, C., Hilliges, O.: In-air gestures around unmodified mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 319–329 (2014)
Yang, X.-D., Hasan, K., Bruce, N., Irani, P.: Surround-see: enabling peripheral vision on smartphones during active use. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 291–300 (2013)
Grubert, J., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Kranz, M., Schmalstieg, D.: Glasshands: Interaction around unmodified mobile devices using sunglasses. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, pp. 215–224 (2016)
Schneider, D., Grubert, J.: [POSTER] Feasibility of corneal imaging for handheld augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct), pp. 44–45 (2017)
Schneider, D., Grubert, J.: Towards around-device interaction using corneal imaging. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, pp. 287–293 (2017)
Crowley, J., Berard, F., Coutaz , J.: Finger tracking as an input device for augmented reality. In: International Workshop on Gesture and Face Recognition, pp. 195–200 (1995)
Brown, T., Thomas, R.C.: Finger tracking for the digital desk. In: Proceedings First Australasian User Interface Conference. AUIC 2000 (Cat. No. PR00515), pp. 11–16 (2000)
Dorfmuller-Ulhaas, K., Schmalstieg, D.: Finger tracking for interaction in augmented environments. In: Proceedings IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Augmented Reality, pp. 55–64 (2001)
Lee, T., Hollerer, T.: Handy AR: Markerless inspection of augmented reality objects using fingertip tracking. In: Proceedings of the 2007 11th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pp. 83–90 (2007)
Lee, M., Green, R., Billinghurst, M.: 3D natural hand interaction for AR applications. In: Proceedings of the 2008 23rd International Conference Image and Vision Computing New Zealand, pp. 1–6 (2008)
Shen, Y., Ong, S.-K., Nee, A.Y.: Vision-based hand interaction in augmented reality environment. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 27(6), 523–544 (2011)
Hürst, W., Van Wezel, C.: Gesture-based interaction via finger tracking for mobile augmented reality. Multimed. Tools Appl. 62(1), 233–258 (2013)
Yusof, C.S., Bai, H., Billinghurst, M., Sunar, M.S.: A review of 3D gesture interaction for handheld augmented reality. Jurnal Teknologi 78(2-2) (2016). https://journals.utm.my/jurnalteknologi/article/view/6923
Kolsch, M., Turk, M., Hollerer, T.: Vision-based interfaces for mobility. In: The First Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services, 2004 (MOBIQUITOUS 2004), pp. 86–94 (2004)
Xiao, R., Schwarz, J., Throm, N., Wilson, A.D., Benko, H.: MRTouch: adding touch input to head-mounted mixed reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 24(4), 1653–1660 (2018)
Cha, Y.-W., Price, T., Wei, Z., Lu, X., Rewkowski, N., Chabra, R., Qin, Z., Kim, H., Su, Z., Liu, Y. : Towards fully mobile 3D face, body, and environment capture using only head-worn cameras. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 24(11), 2993–3004 (2018)
Chen, S.-Y., Gao, L., Lai, Y.-K., Rosin, P.L., Xia, S.: Real-time 3d face reconstruction and gaze tracking for virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 525–526 (2018)
Elgharib, M., BR, M., Tewari, A., Kim, H., Liu, W., Seidel, H.-P., Theobalt, C.: EgoFace: Egocentric Face Performance Capture and Videorealistic Reenactment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10822 (2019)
Thies, J., Zollhöfer, M., Stamminger, M., Theobalt, C., Nießner, M.: FaceVR: Real-time gaze-aware facial reenactment in virtual reality. ACM Trans. Graph. (TOG) 37(2), 1–15 (2018)
Zollhöfer, M., Thies, J., Garrido, P., Bradley, D., Beeler, T., Pérez, P., Stamminger, M., Nießner, M., Theobalt, C.: State of the art on monocular 3D face reconstruction, tracking, and applications. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 37, pp. 523–550 (2018)
Kim, D., Hilliges, O., Izadi, S., Butler, A.D., Chen, J., Oikonomidis, I., Olivier, P.: Digits: freehand 3D interactions anywhere using a wrist-worn gloveless sensor. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 167–176 (2012)
Sato, M., Poupyrev, I., Harrison, C.: Touché: enhancing touch interaction on humans, screens, liquids, and everyday objects. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 483–492 (2012)
Yang, X.-D., Grossman, T., Wigdor, D., Fitzmaurice, G.: Magic finger: always-available input through finger instrumentation. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 147–156 (2012)
Wang, S., Song, J., Lien, J., Poupyrev, I., Hilliges, O.: Interacting with soli: Exploring fine-grained dynamic gesture recognition in the radio-frequency spectrum. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 851–860 (2016)
Speicher, M., Feit, A.M., Ziegler, P., Krüger, A.: Selection-Based Text Entry in Virtual Reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), pp. 1–13. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174221
Schneider, D., Otte, A., Kublin, A.S., Kristensson, P.O., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Martschenko, A., Grubert, J.: Accuracy of commodity finger tracking systems for virtual reality head-mounted displays. In: IEEE VR 2020. IEEE, New York (2020)
Bränzel, A., Holz, C., Hoffmann, D., Schmidt, D., Knaust, M., Lühne, P., Meusel, R., Richter, S., Baudisch, P.: GravitySpace: tracking users and their poses in a smart room using a pressure-sensing floor. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 725–734 (2013)
Nabil, S., Plötz, T., Kirk, D.S.: Interactive architecture: Exploring and unwrapping the potentials of organic user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 89–100 (2017)
Zhang, Y., Yang, C., Hudson, S.E., Harrison, C., Sample, A.: Wall++ Room-Scale Interactive and Context-Aware Sensing. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–15 (2018)
Jiang, F., Yang, X., Feng, L.: Real-time full-body motion reconstruction and recognition for off-the-shelf VR devices. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry-Volume 1, pp. 309–318 (2016)
Caserman, P., Garcia-Agundez, A., Konrad, R., Göbel, S., Steinmetz, R.: Real-time body tracking in virtual reality using a Vive tracker. Virtual Reality 23(2), 155–168 (2019)
Billinghurst, M., Baldis, S., Matheson, L., Philips, M.: 3D palette: a virtual reality content creation tool. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology, pp. 155–156 (1997)
Watsen, K., Darken, R., Capps, M.: A handheld computer as an interaction device to a virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the Third Immersive Projection Technology Workshop (1999)
Poupyrev, I., Tomokazu, N., Weghorst, S.: Virtual Notepad: handwriting in immersive VR. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 1998 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (Cat. No. 98CB36180), pp. 126–132 (1998)
Gesslein, T., Biener, V., Gagel, P., Schneider, D., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Kristensson, P.O., Grubert, J.: Pen-based interaction with spreadsheets in mobile virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) (2020)
Sachs, E., Roberts, A., Stoops, D.: 3-Draw: A tool for designing 3D shapes. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 11(6), 18–26 (1991)
Deering, M.F.: HoloSketch: a virtual reality sketching/animation tool. ACM Trans. Comput. Human Interact. (TOCHI) 2(3), 220–238 (1995)
Keefe, D.F., Feliz, D.A., Moscovich, T., Laidlaw, D.H., LaViola Jr, J.J.: CavePainting: a fully immersive 3D artistic medium and interactive experience. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, pp. 85–93 (2001)
Encarnaĉão, L., Bimber, O., Schmalstieg, D., Chandler, S.: A translucent sketchpad for the virtual table exploring motion-based gesture recognition. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 18, pp. 277–286 (1999)
Fiorentino, M., Uva, A.E., Monno, G.: The Senstylus: A Novel Rumble-Feedback Pen Device for CAD Application in Virtual Reality (2005)
Xin, M., Sharlin, E., Sousa, M.C.: Napkin sketch: handheld mixed reality 3D sketching. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 223–226 (2008)
Yee, B., Ning, Y., Lipson, H.: Augmented reality in-situ 3D sketching of physical objects. In: Intelligent UI Workshop on Sketch Recognition, vol. 1 (2009)
Gasques, D., Johnson, J.G., Sharkey, T., Weibel, N.: PintAR: sketching spatial experiences in augmented reality. In: Companion Publication of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2019 Companion, pp. 17–20 (2019)
Gasques, D., Johnson, J.G., Sharkey, T., Weibel, N.: What you sketch is what you get: Quick and easy augmented reality prototyping with pintar. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–6 (2019)
Arora, R., Habib Kazi, R., Grossman, T., Fitzmaurice, G., Singh, K.: Symbiosissketch: Combining 2d & 3d sketching for designing detailed 3d objects in situ. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 185 (2018)
Drey, T., Gugenheimer, J., Karlbauer, J., Milo, M., Rukzio, E.: VRSketchIn: exploring the design space of pen and tablet interaction for 3D sketching in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2020)
Suzuki, R., Kazi, R.H., Wei, L.-Y., DiVerdi, S., Li, W., Leithinger, D.: RealitySketch: embedding responsive graphics and visualizations in AR with dynamic sketching. In: Adjunct Publication of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 135–138 (2020)
Bowman, D.A., Wingrave, C.A.: Design and evaluation of menu systems for immersive virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 2001, pp. 149–156 (2001)
Teather, R.J., Stuerzlinger, W.: Pointing at 3D targets in a stereo head-tracked virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), pp. 87–94 (2011)
Arora, R., Kazi, R.H., Anderson, F., Grossman, T., Singh, K., Fitzmaurice, G.W.: Experimental evaluation of sketching on surfaces in VR.. In: CHI, vol. 17, pp. 5643–5654 (2017)
Pham, D.-M., Stuerzlinger, W.: Is the pen mightier than the controller? A comparison of input devices for selection in virtual and augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 1–11 (2019)
Batmaz, A.U., Mutasim, A.K., Stuerzlinger, W.: Precision vs. Power grip: a comparison of pen grip styles for selection in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE, New York (2020)
Duchowski, A.T.: Gaze-based interaction: A 30 year retrospective. Comput. Graph. 73, 59–69 (2018)
Mine, M.R.: Virtual Environment Interaction Techniques. UNC Chapel Hill CS Department, New York (1995)
Tanriverdi, V., Jacob, R.J.: Interacting with eye movements in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 265–272 (2000)
Cournia, N., Smith, J.D., Duchowski, A.T.: Gaze-vs. hand-based pointing in virtual environments. In: CHI’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 772–773 (2003)
Duchowski, A.T., Medlin, E., Gramopadhye, A., Melloy, B., Nair, S.: Binocular eye tracking in VR for visual inspection training. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 1–8 (2001)
Burova, A., Mäkelä, J., Hakulinen, J., Keskinen, T., Heinonen, H., Siltanen, S., Turunen, M.: Utilizing VR and Gaze tracking to develop AR solutions for industrial maintenance. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–13 (2020)
Zeleznik, R.C., Forsberg, A.S., Schulze, J.P.: Look-that-there: Exploiting gaze in virtual reality interactions. Technical Report CS-05 (2005)
Piumsomboon, T., Lee, G., Lindeman, R.W., Billinghurst, M.: Exploring natural eye-gaze-based interaction for immersive virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), pp. 36–39 (2017)
Deng, S., Chang, J., Zhang, J.J.: A survey of haptics in serious gaming. In: International Conference on Games and Learning Alliance, pp. 130–144 (2013)
Xia, P., Lopes, A.M., Restivo, M.T.: A review of virtual reality and haptics for product assembly (part 1): rigid parts. In: Assembly Automation (2013)
Minogue, J., Jones, M.G.: Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Rev. Educ. Res. 76(3), 317–348 (2006)
Westebring-van der Putten, E.P., Goossens, R.H., Jakimowicz, J.J., Dankelman, J.: Haptics in minimally invasive surgery–a review. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 17(1), 3–16 (2008)
Coles, T.R., Meglan, D., John, N.W.: The role of haptics in medical training simulators: a survey of the state of the art. IEEE Trans. Haptic 4(1), 51–66 (2010)
Hamza-Lup, F.G., Bogdan, C.M., Popovici, D.M., Costea, O.D.: A survey of visuo-haptic simulation in surgical training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.03272 (2019)
Bermejo, C., Hui, P.: A survey on haptic technologies for mobile augmented reality. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.00698 (2017)
Pacchierotti, C., Sinclair, S., Solazzi, M., Frisoli, A., Hayward, V., Prattichizzo, D.: Wearable haptic systems for the fingertip and the hand: taxonomy, review, and perspectives. IEEE Trans. Haptic 10(4), 580–600 (2017)
McNeely, W.A.: Robotic graphics: a new approach to force feedback for virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, pp. 336–341 (1993)
Sandor, C., Uchiyama, S., Yamamoto, H.: Visuo-haptic systems: Half-mirrors considered harmful. In: Second Joint Eurohaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC’07), pp. 292–297 (2007)
Insko, B.E., Meehan, M., Whitton, M., Brooks, F.: Passive Haptics Significantly Enhances Virtual Environments, Ph.D. Thesis (2001)
Suzuki, R., Hedayati, H., Zheng, C., Bohn, J.L., Szafir, D., Do, E.Y.-L., Gross, M.D., Leithinger, D.: RoomShift: room-scale dynamic haptics for VR with furniture-moving Swarm Robots. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–11 (2020)
Wang, Y., Chen, Z., Li, H., Cao, Z., Luo, H., Zhang, T., Ou, K., Raiti, J., Yu, C., Patel, S.: MoveVR: Enabling multiform force feedback in virtual reality using household cleaning robot. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12 (2020)
Cheng, L.-P., Lühne, P., Lopes, P., Sterz, C., Baudisch, P.: Haptic turk: a motion platform based on people. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3463–3472 (2014)
Cheng, L.-P., Roumen, T., Rantzsch, H., Köhler, S., Schmidt, P., Kovacs, R., Jasper, J., Kemper, J., Baudisch, P.: Turkdeck: Physical virtual reality based on people. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 417–426 (2015)
Azmandian, M., Hancock, M., Benko, H., Ofek, E., Wilson, A.D.: Haptic retargeting: Dynamic repurposing of passive haptics for enhanced virtual reality experiences. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1968–1979 (2016)
Cheng, L.-P., Ofek, E., Holz, C., Benko, H., Wilson, A.D.: Sparse haptic proxy: Touch feedback in virtual environments using a general passive prop. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3718–3728 (2017)
Kohli, L., Burns, E., Miller, D., Fuchs, H.: Combining passive haptics with redirected walking. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Augmented Tele-Existence, pp. 253–254 (2005)
Nilsson, N.C., Peck, T., Bruder, G., Hodgson, E., Serafin, S., Whitton, M., Steinicke, F., Rosenberg, E.S.: 15 years of research on redirected walking in immersive virtual environments. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 38(2), 44–56 (2018)
Jaimes, A., Sebe, N.: Multimodal human–computer interaction: A survey. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 108(1–2), 116–134 (2007)
Turk, M.: Multimodal interaction: A review. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 36, 189–195 (2014)
Nizam, S.S.M., Abidin, R.Z., Hashim, N.C., Lam, M.C., Arshad, H., Majid, N.A.A.: A review of multimodal interaction technique in augmented reality environment. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol 8(4-2), 8–4 (2018)
Cater, J.P.: Smell/taste: odors in reality. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 2, pp. 1781–vol. IEEE, New York (1994)
Hoffman, H.G., Hollander, A., Schroder, K., Rousseau, S., Furness, T.: Physically touching and tasting virtual objects enhances the realism of virtual experiences. Virtual Reality 3(4), 226–234 (1998)
Heilig, M.L.: Sensorama Simulator, vol. 28 (1962)
Gallace, A., Ngo, M.K., Sulaitis, J., Spence, C.: Multisensory presence in virtual reality: possibilities and limitations. In: Multiple Sensorial Media Advances and Applications: New Developments in MulSeMedia. IGI Global, New York (2012), pp. 1–38
Lemmon, V.W.: Extra-sensory perception. J. Psychol. 4(1), 227–238 (1937)
Dublon, G., Paradiso, J.A.: Extra sensory perception. Sci. Am. 311(1), 36–41 (2014)
Knierim, P., Kiss, F., Schmidt, A.: Look inside: understanding thermal flux through augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), pp. 170–171 (2018)
Narumi, T., Ban, Y., Kajinami, T., Tanikawa, T., Hirose, M.: Augmented perception of satiety: controlling food consumption by changing apparent size of food with augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 109–118 (2012)
Narumi, T., Nishizaka, S., Kajinami, T., Tanikawa, T., Hirose, M.: Augmented reality flavors: gustatory display based on edible marker and cross-modal interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 93–102 (2011)
Koizumi, N., Tanaka, H., Uema, Y., Inami, M.: Chewing jockey: augmented food texture by using sound based on the cross-modal effect. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, pp. 1–4 (2011)
Ban, Y., Narumi, T., Fujii, T., Sakurai, S., Imura, J., Tanikawa, T., Hirose, M.: Augmented endurance: controlling fatigue while handling objects by affecting weight perception using augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 69–78 (2013)
Bolt, R.A.: “Put-that-there” Voice and gesture at the graphics interface. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 262–270 (1980)
Hauptmann, A.G.: Speech and gestures for graphic image manipulation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 241–245 (1989)
Cohen, P., McGee, D., Oviatt, S., Wu, L., Clow, J., King, R., Julier, S., Rosenblum, L.: Multimodal interaction for 2D and 3D environments [virtual reality]. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 19(4), 10–13 (1999)
LaViola, J.: Whole-hand and speech input in virtual environments. In: Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of Computer Science, Brown University, CS-99-15 (1999)
Ciger, J., Gutierrez, M., Vexo, F., Thalmann, D.: The magic wand. In: Proceedings of the 19th Spring Conference on Computer Graphics, pp. 119–124 (2003)
Burdea, G., Richard, P., Coiffet, P.: Multimodal virtual reality: Input-output devices, system integration, and human factors. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 8(1), 5–24 (1996)
Prange, A., Barz, M., Sonntag, D.: Medical 3d images in multimodal virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces Companion, pp. 1–2 (2018)
Olwal, A., Benko, H., Feiner, S.: Senseshapes: Using statistical geometry for object selection in a multimodal augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the Second IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2003, pp. 300–301 (2003)
Kaiser, E., Olwal, A., McGee, D., Benko, H., Corradini, A., Li, X., Cohen, P., Feiner, S.: Mutual disambiguation of 3D multimodal interaction in augmented and virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 12–19 (2003)
Heidemann, G., Bax, I., Bekel, H.: Multimodal interaction in an augmented reality scenario. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 53–60 (2004)
Piumsomboon, T., Altimira, D., Kim, H., Clark, A., Lee, G., Billinghurst, M.: Grasp-Shell vs gesture-speech: A comparison of direct and indirect natural interaction techniques in augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 73–82 (2014)
Rosa, N., Werkhoven, P., Hürst, W.: (Re-) examination of multimodal augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Workshop on Multimodal Virtual and Augmented Reality, pp. 1–5 (2016)
Wilson, A., Benko, H., Izadi, S., Hilliges, O.: Steerable augmented reality with the beamatron. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pp. 413–422 (2012)
Tsang, M., Fitzmaurice, G.W., Kurtenbach, G., Khan, A., Buxton, B.: Boom chameleon: simultaneous capture of 3D viewpoint, voice and gesture annotations on a spatially-aware display. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 111–120 (2002)
Benko, H., Ishak, E.W., Feiner, S.: Cross-dimensional gestural interaction techniques for hybrid immersive environments. In: IEEE Proceedings of Virtual Reality 2005 (VR 2005), pp. 209–216 (2005)
Mossel, A., Venditti, B., Kaufmann, H.: 3DTouch and HOMER-S: intuitive manipulation techniques for one-handed handheld augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference: Laval Virtual, p. 12 (2013)
Marzo, A., Bossavit, B., Hachet, M.: Combining multi-touch input and device movement for 3D manipulations in mobile augmented reality environments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, pp. 13–16 (2014)
Polvi, J., Taketomi, T., Yamamoto, G., Dey, A., Sandor, C., Kato, H.: SlidAR: A 3D positioning method for SLAM-based handheld augmented reality. Comput. Graph. 55, 33–43 (2016)
Grandi, J.G., Debarba, H.G., Nedel, L., Maciel, A.: Design and evaluation of a handheld-based 3D user interface for collaborative object manipulation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 5881–5891 (2017)
Surale, H.B., Gupta, A., Hancock, M., Vogel, D.: TabletInVR: Exploring the Design Space for Using a Multi-Touch Tablet in Virtual Reality. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 13 (2019)
Menzner, T., Gesslein, T., Otte, A., Grubert, J.: Above surface interaction for multiscale navigation in mobile virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 372–381 (2020)
Pfeuffer, K., Mayer, B., Mardanbegi, D., Gellersen, H.: Gaze+ pinch interaction in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, pp. 99–108 (2017)
Ryu, K., Lee, J.-J., Park, J.-M.: GG Interaction: a gaze–grasp pose interaction for 3D virtual object selection. J. Multimodal User Interfaces 13(4), 1–11 (2019)
Kytö, M., Ens, B., Piumsomboon, T., Lee, G.A., Billinghurst, M.: Pinpointing: Precise head-and eye-based target selection for augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 81 (2018)
Sidenmark, L., Gellersen, H.: Eye&Head: Synergetic eye and head movement for gaze pointing and selection. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 1161–1174 (2019)
Sidenmark, L., Mardanbegi, D., Ramirez Gomez, A., Clarke, C., Gellersen, H.: BimodalGaze: Seamlessly refined pointing with gaze and filtered gestural head movement. In: Proceedings of Eye Tracking Research and Applications (2020)
Biener, V., Schneider, D., Gesslein, T., Otte, A., Kuth, B., Kristensson, P.O., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Grubert, J.: Breaking the screen: interaction across touchscreen boundaries in virtual reality for mobile knowledge workers. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.(01), 1–1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3023567
Grubert, J., Kranz, M., Quigley, A.: Challenges in mobile multi-device ecosystems. mUX: J. Mobile User Exp. 5(1), 1–22 (2016)
Elmqvist, N.: Distributed user interfaces: State of the art. In: Distributed User Interfaces, pp. 1–12. Springer, New York (2011)
Grubert, J., Kranz, M., Quigley, A.: Design and technology challenges for body proximate display ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct, pp. 951–954 (2015)
Quigley, A., Grubert, J.: Perceptual and social challenges in body proximate display ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct, pp. 1168–1174 (2015)
Brudy, F., Holz, C., Rädle, R., Wu, C.-J., Houben, S., Klokmose, C.N., Marquardt, N.: Cross-device taxonomy: survey, opportunities and challenges of interactions spanning across multiple devices. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–28 (2019)
Feiner, S., Shamash, A.: Hybrid user interfaces: Breeding virtually bigger interfaces for physically smaller computers. In: Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 9–17 (1991)
Butz, A., Hollerer, T., Feiner, S., MacIntyre, B., Beshers, C.: Enveloping users and computers in a collaborative 3D augmented reality. In: Proceedings 2nd IEEE and ACM International Workshop on Augmented Reality (IWAR’99), pp. 35–44 (1999)
Baudisch, P., Good, N., Stewart, P.: Focus plus context screens: combining display technology with visualization techniques. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 31–40 (2001)
MacWilliams, A., Sandor, C., Wagner, M., Bauer, M., Klinker, G., Bruegge, B.: Herding sheep: live system development for distributed augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR’03), p. 123 (2003)
Serrano, M., Ens, B., Yang, X.-D., Irani, P.: Gluey: Developing a head-worn display interface to unify the interaction experience in distributed display environments. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 161–171 (2015)
Boring, S., Baur, D., Butz, A., Gustafson, S., Baudisch, P.: Touch projector: mobile interaction through video. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2287–2296 (2010)
Baur, D., Boring, S., Feiner, S.: Virtual projection: exploring optical projection as a metaphor for multi-device interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1693–1702 (2012)
Boring, S., Baur, D.: Making public displays interactive everywhere. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 33(2), 28–36 (2012)
Grubert, J., Kranz, M.: Headphones: Ad hoc mobile multi-display environments through head tracking. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3966–3971 (2017)
Grubert, J., Kranz, M.: mpCubee: Towards a mobile perspective cubic display using mobile phones. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), pp. 459–460 (2017)
Butscher, S., Hubenschmid, S., Müller, J., Fuchs, J., Reiterer, H.: Clusters, trends, and outliers: How immersive technologies can facilitate the collaborative analysis of multidimensional data. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12 (2018)
Reipschläger, P., Dachselt, R.: DesignAR: immersive 3D-modeling combining augmented reality with interactive displays. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, pp. 29–41 (2019)
Reipschläger, P., Engert, S., Dachselt, R.: Augmented Displays: seamlessly extending interactive surfaces with head-mounted augmented reality. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–4 (2020)
Gugenheimer, J., Dobbelstein, D., Winkler, C., Haas, G., Rukzio, E.: Facetouch: Enabling touch interaction in display fixed uis for mobile virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 49–60 (2016)
Gugenheimer, J., Stemasov, E., Sareen, H., Rukzio, E.: FaceDisplay: enabling multi-user interaction for mobile virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 369–372 (2017)
Gugenheimer, J., Stemasov, E., Frommel, J., Rukzio, E.: 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, pp. 4021–4033 (2017)
Grubert, J., Heinisch, M., Quigley, A., Schmalstieg, D.: Multifi: Multi fidelity interaction with displays on and around the body. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3933–3942 (2015)
Normand, E., McGuffin, M.J.: Enlarging a smartphone with AR to create a handheld VESAD (Virtually Extended Screen-Aligned Display). In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 123–133 (2018)
Zhu, F., Grossman, T.: BISHARE: Exploring bidirectional interactions between smartphones and head-mounted augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2020)
Wenig, D., Schöning, J., Olwal, A., Oben, M., Malaka, R.: WatchThru: Expanding smartwatch displays with mid-air visuals and wrist-worn augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 716–721 (2017)
Lu, Z., Hu, Y., Dai, J.: WatchAR: 6-DoF tracked watch for AR interaction. In: IEEE ISMAR 2019 Demonstrations (2019)
Wolf, D., Dudley, J.J., Kristensson, P.O.: Performance envelopes of in-air direct and smartwatch indirect control for head-mounted augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 347–354 (2018)
Ren, J., Weng, Y., Zhou, C., Yu, C., Shi, Y.: Understanding window management interactions in AR Headset+ smartphone interface. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pp. 1–8 (2020)
Feiner, S., MacIntyre, B., Haupt, M., Solomon, E.: Windows on the world: 2 D windows for 3 D augmented reality. In: ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 145–155 (1993)
Billinghurst, M., Bowskill, J., Jessop, M., Morphett, J.: A wearable spatial conferencing space. In: Digest of Papers. Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers (Cat. No. 98EX215), pp. 76–83 (1998)
LaViola Jr, J.J., Kruijff, E., McMahan, R.P., Bowman, D., Poupyrev, I.P.: 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice. Addison-Wesley Professional, New York (2017)
Wagner, J., Nancel, M., Gustafson, S.G., Huot, S., Mackay, W.E.: Body-centric design space for multi-surface interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1299–1308 (2013)
Li, F.C.Y., Dearman, D., Truong, K.N.: Virtual shelves: interactions with orientation aware devices. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 125–128 (2009)
Chen, X.A., Marquardt, N., Tang, A., Boring, S., Greenberg, S.: Extending a mobile devices interaction space through body-centric interaction. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 151–160 (2012)
Ens, B.M., Finnegan, R., Irani, P.P.: The personal cockpit: a spatial interface for effective task switching on head-worn displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3171–3180 (2014)
Ens, B., Hincapié-Ramos, J.D., Irani, P.: Ethereal planes: a design framework for 2D information space in 3D mixed reality environments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, pp. 2–12 (2014)
Ens, B., Irani, P.: Spatial analytic interfaces: Spatial user interfaces for in situ visual analytics. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 37(2), 66–79 (2016)
Lee, J.H., An, S.-G., Kim, Y., Bae, S.-H.: Projective Windows: bringing windows in space to the fingertip. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 218 (2018)
Petford, J., Nacenta, M.A., Gutwin, C.: Pointing all around you: selection performance of mouse and ray-cast pointing in full-coverage displays. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 533 (2018)
Jetter, H.-C., Rädle, R., Feuchtner, T., Anthes, C., Friedl, J., Klokmose, C.N.: “In VR, everything is possible!”: Sketching and simulating spatially-aware interactive spaces in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–16 (2020)
Grubert, J., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Kristensson, P.O., Steinicke, F., Sandor, C.: The office of the future: virtual, portable, and global. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 38(6), 125–133 (2018)
Ruvimova, A., Kim, J., Fritz, T., Hancock, M., Shepherd, D.C.: “Transport me away”: Fostering flow in open offices through virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2020)
Guo, J., Weng, D., Zhang, Z., Jiang, H., Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Duh, H.B.-L.: Mixed reality office system based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: towards the long-term immersion in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 224–235 (2019)
Li, Z., Annett, M., Hinckley, K., Singh, K., Wigdor, D.: HoloDoc: enabling mixed reality workspaces that harness physical and digital content. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 687 (2019)
Besançon, L., Issartel, P., Ammi, M., Isenberg, T.: Mouse, tactile, and tangible input for 3D manipulation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4727–4740 (2017)
Stuerzlinger, W., Wingrave, C.A.: The value of constraints for 3D user interfaces. In: Virtual Realities. Springer, Berlin (2011), pp. 203–223
Ware, C., Lowther, K.: Selection using a one-eyed cursor in a fish tank VR environment. ACM Trans. Comput. Human Interact. (TOCHI) 4(4), 309–322 (1997)
Perelman, G., Serrano, M., Raynal, M., Picard, C., Derras, M., Dubois, E.: The roly-poly mouse: Designing a rolling input device unifying 2d and 3d interaction. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 327–336 (2015)
Bérard, F., Ip, J., Benovoy, M., El-Shimy, D., Blum, J.R., Cooperstock, J.R.: Did “Minority Report” get it wrong? Superiority of the mouse over 3D input devices in a 3D placement task. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 400–414 (2009)
Sun, J., Stuerzlinger, W., Riecke, B.E.: Comparing input methods and cursors for 3D positioning with head-mounted displays. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Applied Perception, pp. 1–8 (2018)
Krichenbauer, M., Yamamoto, G., Taketom, T., Sandor, C., Kato, H.: Augmented reality versus virtual reality for 3d object manipulation. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 24(2), 1038–1048 (2017)
Grubert, J., Witzani, L., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Kranz, M., Kristensson, P.O.: Text entry in immersive head-mounted display-based virtual reality using standard keyboards. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 159–166 (2018)
Grubert, J., Witzani, L., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Kranz, M., Kristensson, P.O.: Effects of hand representations for typing in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 151–158 (2018)
Knierim, P., Schwind, V., Feit, A.M., Nieuwenhuizen, F., Henze, N.: Physical keyboards in virtual reality: Analysis of typing performance and effects of avatar hands. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–9 (2018)
McGill, M., Boland, D., Murray-Smith, R., Brewster, S.: 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, pp. 2143–2152 (2015)
Pham, D.-M., Stuerzlinger, W.: HawKEY: Efficient and versatile text entry for virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 1–11 (2019)
Kurosawa, T., Shizuki, B., Tanaka, J.: Keyboard Clawing: input method by clawing key tops. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 272–280 (2013)
Kato, J., Sakamoto, D., Igarashi, T.: Surfboard: keyboard with microphone as a low-cost interactive surface. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 23nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 387–388 (2010)
Dietz, P.H., Eidelson, B., Westhues, J., Bathiche, S.: A practical pressure sensitive computer keyboard. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 55–58 (2009)
Zagler, W.L., Beck, C., Seisenbacher, G.: FASTY-Faster and Easier Text Generation for Disabled People (2003)
Loy, C.C., Lai, W., Lim, C.: Development of a pressure-based typing biometrics user authentication system. In: ASEAN Virtual Instrumentation Applications Contest Submission (2005)
Taylor, S., Keskin, C., Hilliges, O., Izadi, S., Helmes, J.: Type-hover-swipe in 96 bytes: a motion sensing mechanical keyboard. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1695–1704 (2014)
Fallot-Burghardt, W., Fjeld, M., Speirs, C., Ziegenspeck, S., Krueger, H., Läubli, T.: Touch&Type: a novel pointing device for notebook computers. In: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles, pp. 465–468 (2006)
Habib, I., Berggren, N., Rehn, E., Josefsson, G., Kunz, A., Fjeld, M.: DGTS: Integrated typing and pointing. In: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 232–235 (2009)
Tung, Y.-C., Cheng, T.Y., Yu, N.-H., Wang, C., Chen, M.Y.: FlickBoard: Enabling trackpad interaction with automatic mode switching on a capacitive-sensing keyboard. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1847–1850 (2015)
Rekimoto, J., Ishizawa, T., Schwesig, C., Oba, H.: PreSense: interaction techniques for finger sensing input devices. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 203–212 (2003)
Shi, Y., Zhang, H., Rajapakse, H., Perera, N.T., Vega Gálvez, T., Nanayakkara, S.: GestAKey: touch interaction on individual keycaps. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 596 (2018)
Block, F., Gellersen, H., Villar, N.: Touch-display keyboards: transforming keyboards into interactive surfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1145–1154 (2010)
Wilson, A.D.: Robust computer vision-based detection of pinching for one and two-handed gesture input. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 255–258 (2006)
Kim, D., Izadi, S., Dostal, J., Rhemann, C., Keskin, C., Zach, C., Shotton, J., Large, T., Bathiche, S., Nießner, M. : RetroDepth: 3D silhouette sensing for high-precision input on and above physical surfaces. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1377–1386 (2014)
Ramos, J., Li, Z., Rosas, J., Banovic, N., Mankoff, J., Dey, A.: Keyboard Surface Interaction: Making the Keyboard into a Pointing Device. arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.04029 (2016)
Buschek, D., Roppelt, B., Alt, F.: Extending keyboard shortcuts with arm and wrist rotation gestures. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 21 (2018)
Lee, B., Park, H., Bang, H.: Multidirectional pointing input using a hardware keyboard. ETRI J. 35(6), 1160–1163 (2013)
Zhang, H., Li, Y.: GestKeyboard: enabling gesture-based interaction on ordinary physical keyboard. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1675–1684 (2014)
Bailly, G., Pietrzak, T., Deber, J., Wigdor, D.J.: Métamorphe: augmenting hotkey usage with actuated keys. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 563–572 (2013)
Shi, Y., Vega Gálvez, T., Zhang, H., Nanayakkara, S.: Gestakey: Get more done with just-a-key on a keyboard. In: Adjunct Publication of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 73–75 (2017)
Zheng, J., Vogel, D.: Finger-aware shortcuts. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4274–4285 (2016)
Zheng, J., Lewis, B., Avery, J., Vogel, D.: Fingerarc and fingerchord: Supporting novice to expert transitions with guided finger-aware shortcuts. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 347–363 (2018)
Sekimori, K., Yamasaki, Y., Takagi, Y., Murata, K., Shizuki, B., Takahashi, S.: Ex-space: Expanded space key by sliding thumb on home position. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 68–78 (2018)
I. U. T. Inc.: A Brief History of the LCD Key Technology. https://visualled.com/en/led-screens/brief-history-of-lcd-screens/. Last access: 25.06.2022. https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/use-the-touch-bar-mchlbfd5b039/mac. Last access: 25.06.2022
Logitech: Logitech G19 Keyboard for Gaming
Razor: Razor Deathstalker Ultimate Keyboard
Maiti, A., Jadliwala, M., Weber, C.: Preventing shoulder surfing using randomized augmented reality keyboards. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops), pp. 630–635 (2017). https://mysupport.razer.com/ app/answers/detail/a_id/3624//~razer-deathstalker-ultimate-%7C- rz03-00790-support. Last access: 25.06.2022
Wang, X., Besançon, L., Rousseau, D., Sereno, M., Ammi, M., Isenberg, T.: Towards an understanding of augmented reality extensions for existing 3D data analysis tools. In: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(2020)
Schneider, D., Otte, A., Gesslein, T., Gagel, P., Kuth, B., Damlakhi, M.S., Dietz, O., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Kristensson, P.O. : ReconViguRation: reconfiguring physical keyboards in virtual reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 25(11), 3190–3201 (2019)
Grubert, J., Ofek, E., Pahud, M., Kristensson, b.y.o., Per Ola: Back to the future: revisiting mouse and keyboard interaction for HMD-based immersive analytics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.02927 (2020)
Casiez, G., Vogel, D., Balakrishnan, R., Cockburn, A.: The impact of control-display gain on user performance in pointing tasks. Hum. Comput. Interact. 23(3), 215–250 (2008)
Baudisch, P., Cutrell, E., Hinckley, K., Gruen, R.: Mouse ether: accelerating the acquisition of targets across multi-monitor displays. In: CHI’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1379–1382 (2004)
Ashdown, M., Oka, K., Sato, Y.: Combining head tracking and mouse input for a GUI on multiple monitors. In: CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1188–1191 (2005)
Benko, H., Feiner, S.: Multi-monitor mouse. In: CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1208–1211 (2005)
Waldner, M., Kruijff, E., Schmalstieg, D.: Bridging gaps with pointer warping in multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, pp. 813–816 (2010)
Villar, N., Izadi, S., Rosenfeld, D., Benko, H., Helmes, J., Westhues, J., Hodges, S., Ofek, E., Butler, A., Cao, X. : Mouse 2.0: multi-touch meets the mouse. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 33–42 (2009)
MacKenzie, I.S., Soukoreff, R.W., Pal, C.: A two-ball mouse affords three degrees of freedom. In: CHI’97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 303–304 (1997)
Olwal, A., Feiner, S.: Unit: modular development of distributed interaction techniques for highly interactive user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques in Australasia and South East Asia, pp. 131–138 (2004)
Cechanowicz, J., Irani, P., Subramanian, S.: Augmenting the mouse with pressure sensitive input. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1385–1394 (2007)
Kim, S., Kim, H., Lee, B., Nam, T.-J., Lee, W.: Inflatable mouse: volume-adjustable mouse with air-pressure-sensitive input and haptic feedback. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 211–224 (2008)
Balakrishnan, R., Baudel, T., Kurtenbach, G., Fitzmaurice, G.: The Rockin’Mouse: integral 3D manipulation on a plane. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 311–318 (1997)
Hinckley, K., Sinclair, M., Hanson, E., Szeliski, R., Conway, M.: The videomouse: a camera-based multi-degree-of-freedom input device. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 103–112 (1999)
Steed, A., Slater, M.: 3d interaction with the desktop bat. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 14, pp. 97–104 (1995)
Fröhlich, B., Plate, J.: The cubic mouse: a new device for three-dimensional input. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 526–531 (2000)
Froehlich, B., Hochstrate, J., Skuk, V., Huckauf, A.: The globefish and the globemouse: two new six degree of freedom input devices for graphics applications. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 191–199 (2006)
Saidi, H., Serrano, M., Irani, P., Dubois, E.: TDome: a touch-enabled 6DOF interactive device for multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 5892–5904 (2017)
Microsoft: Getting Started with the Windows Mixed Reality Toolkit (2019)
Völkel, S.T., Schneegass, C., Eiband, M., Buschek, D.: What is “intelligent” in intelligent user interfaces? a meta-analysis of 25 years of IUI. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 477–487 (2020)
Grubert, J., Langlotz, T., Zollmann, S., Regenbrecht, H.: Towards pervasive augmented reality: Context-awareness in augmented reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 23(6), 1706–1724 (2016)
Nwana, H.S.: Software agents: An overview. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 11(3), 205–244 (1996)
Hoy, M.B.: Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and more: an introduction to voice assistants. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 37(1), 81–88 (2018)
Norouzi, N., Kim, K., Hochreiter, J., Lee, M., Daher, S., Bruder, G., Welch, G.: A systematic survey of 15 years of user studies published in the intelligent virtual agents conference. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp. 17–22 (2018)
Dehn, D.M., Van Mulken, S.: The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 52(1), 1–22 (2000)
Yee, N., Bailenson, J.N., Rickertsen, K.: A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–10 (2007)
Kim, K., Boelling, L., Haesler, S., Bailenson, J., Bruder, G., Welch, G.F.: Does a digital assistant need a body? The influence of visual embodiment and social behavior on the perception of intelligent virtual agents in AR. In: Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 105–114 (2018)
Norouzi, N., Bruder, G., Belna, B., Mutter, S., Turgut, D., Welch, G.: A systematic review of the convergence of augmented reality, intelligent virtual agents, and the internet of things. In: Artificial Intelligence in IoT. Springer, Berlin (2019), pp. 1–24
Maes, P., Darrell, T., Blumberg, B., Pentland, A.: The ALIVE system: Wireless, full-body interaction with autonomous agents. Multimedia Systems 5(2), 105–112 (1997)
Cavazza, M., Martin, O., Charles, F., Mead, S.J., Marichal, X.: Interacting with virtual agents in mixed reality interactive storytelling. In: International Workshop on Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp. 231–235 (2003)
MacIntyre, B., Bolter, J.D., Moreno, E., Hannigan, B.: Augmented reality as a new media experience. In: Proceedings of the IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Augmented Reality, pp. 197–206 (2001)
Anabuki, M., Kakuta, H., Yamamoto, H., Tamura, H.: Welbo: An embodied conversational agent living in mixed reality space. In: CHI’00 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 10–11 (2000)
Barakonyi, I., Psik, T., Schmalstieg, D.: Agents that talk and hit back: Animated agents in augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 141–150 (2004)
Barakonyi, I., Schmalstieg, D.: Augmented reality agents in the development pipeline of computer entertainment. In: International Conference on Entertainment Computing, pp. 345–356 (2005)
Barakonyi, I., Schmalstieg, D.: Ubiquitous animated agents for augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 145–154 (2006)
Chekhlov, D., Gee, A.P., Calway, A., Mayol-Cuevas, W.: Ninja on a plane: Automatic discovery of physical planes for augmented reality using visual slam. In: Proceedings of the 2007 6th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 153–156 (2007)
Durrant-Whyte, H., Bailey, T.: Simultaneous localization and mapping: part I. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 13(2), 99–110 (2006)
Blum, L., Wetzel, R., McCall, R., Oppermann, L., Broll, W.: The final TimeWarp: using form and content to support player experience and presence when designing location-aware mobile augmented reality games. In: Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, pp. 711–720 (2012)
Kotranza, A., Lok, B.: Virtual human+ tangible interface= mixed reality human an initial exploration with a virtual breast exam patient. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, pp. 99–106 (2008)
Kotranza, A., Lok, B., Deladisma, A., Pugh, C.M., Lind, D.S.: Mixed reality humans: Evaluating behavior, usability, and acceptability. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 15(3),369–382 (2009)
Weiser, M.: The computer for the 21st century. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Compens. Rev. 3(3), 3–11 (1999)
Schmidt, A.: Biosignals in human-computer interaction. Interactions 23(1), 76–79 (2015)
Schraefel, M.: in5: a Model for Inbodied Interaction. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–6 (2019)
Kazerooni, H.: A review of the exoskeleton and human augmentation technology. In: Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, vol. 43352, pp. 1539–1547 (2008)
Kunze, K., Minamizawa, K., Lukosch, S., Inami, M., Rekimoto, J.: Superhuman sports: Applying human augmentation to physical exercise. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 16(2), 14–17 (2017)
Schmidt, A.: Augmenting human intellect and amplifying perception and cognition. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 16(1), 6–10 (2017)
Benko, H., Holz, C., Sinclair, M., Ofek, E.: Normaltouch and texturetouch: High-fidelity 3d haptic shape rendering on handheld virtual reality controllers. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 717–728 (2016)
Schmidt, S., Bruder, G., Steinicke, F.: Effects of virtual agent and object representation on experiencing exhibited artifacts. Comput. Graph. 83, 1–10 (2019)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grubert, J. (2023). Mixed Reality Interaction Techniques. In: Nee, A.Y.C., Ong, S.K. (eds) Springer Handbook of Augmented Reality. Springer Handbooks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67822-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67822-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-67821-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-67822-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)