Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Embedding Self-Assessment Manikins in Mobile Augmented Reality Applications

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality (HCII 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14027))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1028 Accesses

Abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) applications have been widely investigated over the past decades, however, due to the simultaneous advancements in technology, the research has to be constantly evolving, too.

Specifically, if looking at aspects that influence User Experience (UX) and Usability, newer technologies in AR-hardware, as well as in evaluation methods, offer promising features that could have a positive influence but might also uncover new challenges.

The following paper is going to propose a prototype for the assessment of emotional responses to provided stimuli with Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) to be integrated within an AR application. For that, the first important aspects of AR will be introduced, defined, and at times complemented and compared with known concepts from Virtual Reality.

After assessing the current state-of-the-art by investigating related literature, the motivation behind an integrated approach will be explained in more detail and the implementation of the SAM prototype with the UI design platform Figma will be introduced. Results from the conducted user study will provide valuable insight into how the three-dimensional SAM was received and consider the opportunities and limitations of the implemented design.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://news.microsoft.com/europe/features/microsoft-hololens-comes-to-europe/.

  2. 2.

    In literature commonly abbreviated as SUS, however in this paper SUS solely refers to the System Usability Scale [5].

  3. 3.

    https://www.figma.com/ui-design-tool/.

  4. 4.

    https://www.vectary.com/3d-modeling-blog/figma-3d-vectary-plugin.

  5. 5.

    EMUI 12 operating system.

  6. 6.

    https://www.google.com/forms/about/.

  7. 7.

    https://ati-scale.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ati-s-scale-short-version.pdf.

References

  1. i-group presence questionnaire (IPQ) overview. http://www.igroup.org/pq/ipq/index.php

  2. Alexandrovsky, D., et al.: Examining design choices of questionnaires in VR user studies, pp. 1–21. Association for Computing Machinery (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376260

  3. Arifin, Y., Sastria, T.G., Barlian, E.: User experience metric for augmented reality application: a review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 135, 648–656 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.221, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705091831514X

  4. Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J.: Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 25(1), 49–59 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005791694900639

  5. Brooke, J.B.: SUS: A ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bruun, A., Ahm, S.: Mind the gap! comparing retrospective and concurrent ratings of emotion in user experience evaluation. In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2015. LNCS, vol. 9296, pp. 237–254. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22701-6_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Craig, A.B.: Understanding Augmented Reality. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/C2011-0-07249-6, https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780240824086/

  8. De Paiva Guimaraes, M., Martins, V.F.: A checklist to evaluate augmented reality applications (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/svr.2014.17

  9. Dede, C.: Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 323, 66–69 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dey, A., Billinghurst, M., Lindeman, R.W., Swan, J.E.: A systematic review of 10 years of augmented reality usability studies: 2005 to 2014. Front. Robot. AI 5, 37 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Endsley, T.C., Sprehn, K.A., Brill, R.M., Ryan, K.J., Vincent, E.C., Martin, J.M.: Augmented reality design heuristics: designing for dynamic interactions. Proc. Hum. Fact. Ergonom. Soc. Ann. Meet. 61(1), 2100–2104 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213602007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gall, D., Latoschik, M.E.: The effect of haptic prediction accuracy on presence. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 73–80 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2018.8446153

  13. Irtel, H.: PXLab: the psychological experiments laboratory. version 2.1.11. (2007). http://www.pxlab.de

  14. ISO 9241–11, q.: ISO 9241: Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. Standard, International Organization for Standardization (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kahl, D., Ruble, M., Krüger, A.: The influence of environmental lighting on size variations in optical see-through tangible augmented reality. In: 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 121–129 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/VR51125.2022.00030

  16. Kengadaran, S.: View in 3D - Reference File. https://www.figma.com/community/file/947832835915257827. licensed under CC BY 4.0

  17. Li, B.J., Bailenson, J.N., Pines, A., Greenleaf, W.J., Williams, L.M.: A public database of immersive VR videos with corresponding ratings of arousal, valence, and correlations between head movements and self report measures. Front. Psychol. 8, 2116 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02116, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02116

  18. Merino, L., Schwarzl, M., Kraus, M., Sedlmair, M., Schmalstieg, D., Weiskopf, D.: Evaluating mixed and augmented reality: a systematic literature review (2009–2019) (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ismar50242.2020.00069

  19. Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 77, 1321–1329 (1994). https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~gogo/courses/imgd5100/papers/Milgram_IEICE_1994.pdf

  20. Morris, J.D.: Observations: SAM: the self-assessment manikin. J. Advert. Res. 35(6), 63–68 (1995)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Nielsen, J.: Ten usability heuristics (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Regal, G., et al.: Questionnaires embedded in virtual environments: reliability and positioning of rating scales in virtual environments. Qual. User Exp. 4(1), 1–13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-019-0029-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwind, V., Knierim, P., Haas, N., Henze, N.: Using presence questionnaires in virtual reality (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300590

  24. Slater, M.: Measuring presence: a response to the Witmer and singer presence questionnaire. Presence 8, 560–565 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Slater, M., Steed, A.: A virtual presence counter. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 9(5), 413–434 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1162/105474600566925

  26. Slater, M., Steed, A., McCarthy, J.D., Maringelli, F.: The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 40, 469–477 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779591368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Slater, M., Wilbur, S.: A framework for immersive virtual environments (five): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6, 603–616 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603

  28. Verhulst, I., Woods, A., Whittaker, L., Bennett, J., Dalton, P.: Do VR and AR versions of an immersive cultural experience engender different user experiences?. Comput. Hum. Behav. 125, 106951 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106951, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563221002740

  29. Wessel, D., Attig, C., Franke, T.: ATI-S - an ultra-short scale for assessing affinity for technology interaction in user studies (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3340764.3340766

  30. Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 7(3), 225–240 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Quality and Usability Lab, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Leonie Lübbing, Tanja Kojić & Sebastian Möller

  2. German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Berlin, Germany

    Sebastian Möller & Jan-Niklas Voigt-Antons

  3. Immersive Reality Lab, University of Applied Sciences Hamm-Lippstadt, Lippstadt, Germany

    Jan-Niklas Voigt-Antons

Authors
  1. Leonie Lübbing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tanja Kojić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sebastian Möller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan-Niklas Voigt-Antons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tanja Kojić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA

    Jessie Y. C. Chen

  2. U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center, Orlando, FL, USA

    Gino Fragomeni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Lübbing, L., Kojić, T., Möller, S., Voigt-Antons, JN. (2023). Embedding Self-Assessment Manikins in Mobile Augmented Reality Applications. In: Chen, J.Y.C., Fragomeni, G. (eds) Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. HCII 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14027. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35634-6_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35634-6_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-35633-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-35634-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation