skip to main content
10.1145/3338286.3344395acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fostering Virtual Guide in Exhibitions

Published:01 October 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Museums are essential to make culture accessible to the mass audience. Human museum guides are important to explain the presented artifacts to the visitors. Recently, museums started to experiment with enhancing exhibitions through mixed reality. It enables cultural exhibitors to provide each visitor with an individualized virtual guide that adapts to the visitor's interests. The effect of the presence and appearance of a virtual museum guide is, however, unclear. In this paper, we compare a real-world guide with a realistic, an abstract, and an audio-only representation of the virtual guide. Participants followed four multimodal presentations while we investigated the effect on comprehension and perceived co-presence. We found that a realistic representation of a virtual guide increases the perceived co-presence and does not adversely affect the comprehension of learning content in mixed reality exhibitions. Insights from our study inform the design of virtual guides for real-world exhibitions.

References

  1. Jeremy N Bailenson, Andrew C Beall, and Jim Blascovich. 2002. Gaze and task performance in shared virtual environments. The journal of visualization and computer animation 13, 5 (2002), 313--320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jeremy N Bailenson, Nick Yee, Dan Merget, and Ralph Schroeder. 2006. The effect of behavioral realism and form realism of real-time avatar faces on verbal disclosure, nonverbal disclosure, emotion recognition, and copresence in dyadic interaction. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 15, 4 (2006), 359--372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Amy L Baylor. 2009. Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 1535 (2009), 3559--3565.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Amy L Baylor. 2011. The design of motivational agents and avatars. Educational Technology Research and Development 59, 2 (2011), 291--300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Justine Cassell, Joseph Sullivan, Elizabeth Churchill, and Scott Prevost. 2000. Embodied conversational agents. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Tony Hall, Luigina Ciolfi, Liam Bannon, Mike Fraser, Steve Benford, John Bowers, Chris Greenhalgh, Sten-Olof Hellström, Shahram Izadi, Holger Schnädelbach, and Martin Flintham. 2001. The Visitor As Virtual Archaeologist: Explorations in Mixed Reality Technology to Enhance Educational and Social Interaction in the Museum. In Proceedings of the 2001 Conference on Virtual Reality, Archeology, and Cultural Heritage (VAST'01). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 91--96. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/584993.585008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jeff Hansen. 2018. "MR Museum in Kyoto" provides unique insight into centuries-old Japanese artwork. https://blogs.windows.com/devices/2018/02/22/mr-museum-kyoto-provides-unique-insight-centuries-old-japanese-artwork. (22 02 2018). Accessed: 2019-07-09.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Lucinda Kerawalla, Rosemary Luckin, Simon Seljeflot, and Adrian Woolard. 2006. "Making it real": exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual reality 10, 3-4 (2006), 163--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Tomotsugu Kondo, Makoto Manabe, Hiroyuki Arita-Kikutani, and Yuko Mishima. 2009. Practical uses of mixed reality exhibition at the national museum of nature and science in tokyo. In Joint Virtual Reality Conference of EGVE-ICAT-EuroVR.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jean-Luc Lugrin, Johanna Latt, and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2015. Anthropomorphism and Illusion of Virtual Body Ownership. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence and 20th Eurographics Symposium on Virtual Environments (ICAT - EGVE '15). Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland, Switzerland, 1--8. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/egve.20151303Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Paulette M McManus. 1987. It's the company you keep...: The social determination of learning-related behaviour in a science museum. Museum Management and Curatorship 6, 3 (1987), 263--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Gyata Mehta and Varsha Mokhasi. 2014. Item analysis of multiple choice questions-an assessment of the assessment tool. Int J Health Sci Res 4, 7(2014), 197--202.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Clifford Nass, Jonathan Steuer, and Ellen R Tauber. 1994. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 72--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Zhigeng Pan, Adrian David Cheok, Hongwei Yang, Jiejie Zhu, and Jiaoying Shi. 2006. Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Computers & graphics 30, 1 (2006), 20--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Sandra Poeschl-Guenther and Nicola Doering. 2015. Measuring Co-Presence and Social Presence in Virtual Environments - Psychometric Construction of a German Scale for a Fear of Public Speaking Scenario. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine 13 (01 2015), 58--63. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-595-1-58Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. W Boyd Rayward and Michael B Twidale. 1999. From Docent to Cyberdocent: Education and Guidance in the Virtual Museum. Archives and Museum Informatics 13, 1 (1999), 23--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Elisa Rubegni, Nicoletta Di Blas, Paolo Paolini, and Amalia Sabiescu. 2010. A Format to Design Narrative Multimedia Applications for Cultural Heritage Communication. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1238--1239. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1774088.1774350Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Beth Rubin, Ron Fernandes, Maria D Avgerinou, and James Moore. 2010. The effect of learning management systems on student and faculty outcomes. The Internet and Higher Education 13, 1-2 (2010), 82--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Maria V Sanchez-Vives and Mel Slater. 2005. From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6, 4 (2005), 332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Laura Valenzeno, Martha W Alibali, and Roberta Klatzky. 2003. Teachers' gestures facilitate students' learning: A lesson in symmetry. Contemporary Educational Psychology 28, 2 (2003), 187--204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Steue Whittaker. 2003. Theories and Methods in Mediated Communication: Steve Whittaker. In Handbook of discourse processes. Routledge, 246--289.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

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

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    MobileHCI '19: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
    October 2019
    646 pages
    ISBN:9781450368254
    DOI:10.1145/3338286

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 1 October 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader