skip to main content
10.1145/3365610.3365616acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmumConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Audio-augmented museum experiences using wearable visual-inertial odometry

Published:26 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

The auditory sense is an intuitive and immersive channel to experience our surroundings, which motivates us to augment our perception of the real world with digital auditory content. We present a wearable audio augmented reality prototype that tracks the user with six degrees of freedom in a known environment, synthesizes 3D sounds, and plays spatialized audio from arbitrary objects to the user. Our prototype is built using head-mounted visual-inertial odometry, a sound simulation engine on a laptop, and off-the-shelf headphones. We demonstrate an application in a gallery scenario in which visitors can hear objects and scenes drawn in the paintings, feeling audio-visually engaged in the depicted surroundings. In a user study involving 26 participants, we observed that the audio-enhanced exhibition improved people's experience, as well as helped them remember more lively details of the artworks.

References

  1. Robert Albrecht, Riitta Väänänen, and Tapio Lokki. 2016. Guided by Music: Pedestrian and Cyclist Navigation with Route and Beacon Guidance. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 20, 20:1, 20(1), 121--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Amit Barde, Matt Ward, William S Helton, Mark Billinghurst, and Gun Lee. 2016. Attention Redirection using Binaurally Spatialised Cues Delivered over a Bone Conduction Headset. In Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Benjamin B. Bederson and Allison Druin. 1995. Computer Augmented Environments: New Places to Learn, Work, and Play. Advances in Human Computer Interaction 5 (1995), 37--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jens Blauert. 1997. Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Simon Blessenohl, Cecily Morrison, Antonio Criminisi, and Jamie Shotton. 2015. Improving Indoor mobility of The Visually Impaired with Depth-based Spatial Sound. In IEEE ICCV.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Michael Bloesch, Sammy Omari, Marco Hutter, and Roland Siegwart. 2015. Robust Visual Inertial Odometry Using A Direct EKF-based Approach. In IEEE/RSJ IROS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Marcia de Borba Campos, Jaime Sánchez, Anderson Cardoso Martins, Régis Schneider Santana, and Matías Espinoza. 2014. Mobile Navigation through A Science Museum for Users Who Are Blind. In UAHCI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jakob Engel, Thomas Schöps, and Daniel Cremers. 2014. LSD-SLAM: Large-Scale Direct Monocular SLAM. In ECCV.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Christian Forster, Zichao Zhang, Michael Gassner, Manuel Werlberger, and Davide Scaramuzza. (2017). SVO: Semidirect Visual Odometry for Monocular and Multicamera Systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 33, 2, 33(2), 249--265.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Florian Heller and Jan Borchers. 2014. AudioTorch: Using A Smartphone as Directional Microphone in Virtual Audio Spaces. In ACM MobileHCI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Florian Heller, Jayan Jevanesan, Pascal Dietrich, and Jan Borchers. 2016. Where Are We?: Evaluating The Current Rendering Fidelity of Mobile Audio Augmented Reality Systems. In ACM MobileHCI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Florian Heller and Johannes Schöning. 2018. NavigaTone: Seamlessly Embedding Navigation Cues in Mobile Music Listening. In ACM CHI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Yi-Ta Hsieh, Valeria Orso, Salvatore Andolina, Manuela Canaveras, Diogo Cabral, Anna Spagnolli, Luciano Gamberini, and Gamberini Jacucci. 2018. Interweaving Visual and Audio-Haptic Augmented Reality for Urban Exploration. In ACM DIS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kangsoo Kim, Mark Billinghurst, Gerd Bruder, Henry Beenlirn Duh, and Gregory F. Welch. 2018. Revisiting Trends in Augmented Reality Research: A Review of The 2nd Decade of ISMAR (2008--2017). IEEE TVCG 24, 11 (2018), 2947--2962.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Tiffany CK. Kwok, Peter Kiefer, Victor R. Schinazi, Benjamin Adams, and Martin Raubal. 2019. Gaze-Guided Narratives: Adapting Audio Guide Content to Gaze in Virtual and Real Environments. In ACM CHI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Stefan Leutenegger, Simon Lynen, Michael Bosse, Roland Siegwart, and Paul Furgale. (2015). Keyframe-based Visual-Inertial Odometry Using Nonlinear Optimization. The International Journal of Robotics Research 34, 3, 34(4), 314--334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Jörg Müller, Matthias Geier, Christina Dicke, and Sascha Spors. 2014. The Boom-Room: Mid-air Direct Interaction with Virtual Sound Sources. In ACM CHI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Raul Mur-Artal, Jose Maria Martinez Montiel, and Juan D Tardos. (2015). ORB-SLAM: A Versatile And Accurate Monocular SLAM System. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 31, 5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Richard A Newcombe, Steven J Lovegrove, and Andrew J Davison. 2011. DTAM: Dense Tracking And Mapping in Real-Time. In IEEE ICCV.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tong Qin, Peiliang Li, and Shaojie Shen. (2018). VINS-Mono: A Robust and Versatile Monocular Visual-Inertial State Estimator. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34, 4, 34(4), 1004--1020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Spencer Russell, Gershon Dublon, and Joseph A Paradiso. 2016. HearThere: Networked Sensory ProsThetics through Auditory Augmented Reality. In ACM AH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Eldon Schoop, James Smith, and Bjoern Hartmann. 2018. HindSight: Enhancing Spatial Awareness by Sonifying Detected Objects in Real-Time 360-Degree Video. In ACM CHI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Titus JJ Tang and Wai Ho Li. 2014. An Assistive Eyewear Prototype That Interactively Converts 3D Object Locations into Spatial Audio. In ACM ISWC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Yolanda Vazquez-Alvarez, Matthew P Aylett, Stephen A Brewster, Rocio von Jungenfeld, and Antti Virolainen. 2014. Multilevel Auditory Displays for Mobile Eyes-free Location-based Interaction. In ACM CHI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Chi Thanh Vi, Damien Ablart, Elia Gatti, Carlos Velasco, and Marianna Obrist. 2017. Not Just Seeing, But Also Feeling Art: Mid-air Haptic Experiences Integrated in a Multisensory Art Exhibition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 108 (2017), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Ron Wakkary and Marek Hatala. (2007). Situated Play in A Tangible Interface and Adaptive Audio Museum Guide. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11, 3, 11(3), 171--191.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Audio-augmented museum experiences using wearable visual-inertial odometry

      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 Other conferences
        MUM '19: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia
        November 2019
        462 pages
        ISBN:9781450376242
        DOI:10.1145/3365610

        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 ACM 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: 26 November 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate190of465submissions,41%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader