skip to main content
10.1145/3527927.3533730acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesc-n-cConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

The Technical Dilemmas of Creative Design and Rapid Prototyping for Immersive Storytelling

Published:20 June 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we present an overview of the problem by discussing the landscape of extended reality (XR) and attention guidance techniques considering the effects of current trends, cybersickness, presence and user performance. Then, we discuss designing and rapid prototyping for immersive storytelling as a case study on the applications of these techniques and their related challenges. In conclusion, we propose a research plan that addresses two interrelated themes, and potential research directions to ensure better ways to design and rapid prototype for attention guidance techniques in XR and, as a result, better XR experiences.

References

  1. Mike Alger. 2015. VR interface design pre-visualisation methods. Online video clip. YouTube(2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Richard M. Blumenberg. 1977. Documentary Films and the Problem of ”Truth”. Journal of the University Film Association 29, 4 (oct 1977), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/20687386Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Garnet C. Butchart. 2006. On Ethics and Documentary: A Real and Actual Truth. Communication Theory 16, 4 (nov 2006), 427–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00279.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Peter Chu. 2014. VR design: Transitioning from a 2d to 3d design paradigm. San Francisco: Samsung Developer Connection(2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Stephanie Hui Wen Chuah. 2019. Wearable XR-technology: Literature review, conceptual framework and future research directions. International Journal of Technology Marketing 13, 3-4(2019), 205–259. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2019.104586Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins English Dictionary. 2019. Ontology definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ontologyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Sam Daley. 2019. 10 Companies Using AR And VR In Surgery. https://builtin.com/healthcare-technology/augmented-virtual-reality-surgeryGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Amir Dirin, Ari Alamäki, and Jyrki Suomala. 2019. Gender Differences in Perceptions of Conventional Video, Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) 13, 06 (jun 2019), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i06.10487Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kath Dooley. 2017. Storytelling with virtual reality in 360-degrees: a new screen grammar. Studies in Australasian Cinema 11, 3 (2017), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2017.1387357Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2019. Holism in Philosophy. https://www.britannica.com/topic/holismGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Yasin Farmani and Robert J. Teather. 2018. Viewpoint snapping to reduce cybersickness in virtual reality. In Proceedings - Graphics Interface, Vol. 2018-May. 159–166. https://doi.org/10.20380/GI2018.21Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Yasin Farmani and Robert J. Teather. 2020. Evaluating discrete viewpoint control to reduce cybersickness in virtual reality. Virtual Reality (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00425-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Anna Felnhofer, Oswald D Kothgassner, Leon Beutl, Helmut Hlavacs, and Ilse Kryspin-exner. 2012. Is Virtual Reality made for Men only? Exploring Gender Differences in the Sense of Presence. In Proceedings of the International Society on Presence Research. Philadelphia, PA, 103–112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Christopher Finch and Peter Blake. 1995. The art of Walt Disney: From Mickey mouse to the magic kingdoms. Abrams.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Alireza Mazloumi Gavgani, Frederick R. Walker, Deborah M. Hodgson, and Eugene Nalivaiko. 2018. A comparative study of cybersickness during exposure to virtual reality and “classic” motion sickness: Are they different?Journal of Applied Physiology 125, 6 (2018), 1670–1680. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00338.2018Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Michael Gödde, Frank Gabler, Dirk Siegmund, and Andreas Braun. 2018. Cinematic Narration in VR – Rethinking Film Conventions for 360 Degrees. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 10910 LNCS. Springer Verlag, 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91584-5_15Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. John F. Golding. 2006. Motion sickness susceptibility. Autonomic Neuroscience 129, 1-2 (oct 2006), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autneu.2006.07.019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. John F Golding, Priscilla Kadzere, and Michael A Gresty. 2005. Motion sickness susceptibility fluctuates through the menstrual cycle.Aviation, space, and environmental medicine 76, 10 (oct 2005), 970–973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jan Gugenheimer, Dennis Wolf, Gabriel Haas, Sebastian Krebs, and Enrico Rukzio. 2016. SwiVRChair: A Motorized Swivel Chair to Nudge Users’ Orientation for 360 Degree Storytelling in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1996–2000. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858040Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Hakkinen, Tero Vuori, and M. Paakka. 2002. Postural stability and sickness symptoms after HMD use. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. vol.4. IEEE, 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2002.1167964Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Christina Harrington and Tawanna R Dillahunt. 2021. Eliciting Tech Futures Among Black Young Adults: A Case Study of Remote Speculative Co-Design. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 397, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445723Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Wanja A. Hemmerich, Avner Shahal, and Heiko Hecht. 2019. Predictors of visually induced motion sickness in women. Displays 58, November 2018 (2019), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2018.11.005Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Donald M. Hilty, Karan Randhawa, Marlene M. Maheu, Alastair J. S. McKean, Richard Pantera, Matthew C. Mishkind, and Albert “Skip” Rizzo. 2020. A Review of Telepresence, Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality Applied to Clinical Care. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science 5, 2 (jun 2020), 178–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00126-xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Edward W. Hudlin. 1979. Film Language. Journal of Aesthetic Education 13, 2 (apr 1979), 47. https://doi.org/10.2307/3331928Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. John P. Hutson, Tim J. Smith, Joseph P. Magliano, and Lester C. Loschky. 2017. What is the role of the film viewer? The effects of narrative comprehension and viewing task on gaze control in film. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 2, 1 (dec 2017), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0080-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. David M Johnson. 2005. Report 1832: Introduction to and Review of Simulator Sickness Research. Technical Report. US Army Research Institute for the Behavior Sciences, Arlington, VA. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a434495.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Brennan Jones, Yaying Zhang, Priscilla N. Y. Wong, Sean Rintel, and Yasamin Heshmat. 2020. VR-Enabled Telepresence as a Bridge for People, Environments, and Experiences. In CHI2020 Workshop on Social VR. ACM SIGCHI, ACM. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/vr-enabled-telepresence-as-a-bridge-for-people-environments-and-experiences/Social VR Workshop paper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M.-Carmen Juan, Inmaculada García-García, Ramón Mollá, and Richard López. 2018. Users’ Perceptions Using Low-End and High-End Mobile-Rendered HMDs: A Comparative Study. Computers 7, 1 (feb 2018), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers7010015Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Saara Kamppari-Miller. 2017. VR Paper Prototyping. https://blog.prototypr.io/vr-paper-prototyping-9e1cab6a75f3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Andreas Keller. 2011. Attention and Olfactory Consciousness. Frontiers in Psychology 2 (December 2011), 380. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00380Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Eugenia M. Kolasinski and Richard D. Gilson. 1998. Simulator Sickness and Related Findings in a Virtual Environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 42, 21 (oct 1998), 1511–1515. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129804202110Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Maggie Kosek, Babis Koniaris, David Sinclair, Desislava Markova, Fraser Rothnie, Lanny Smoot, and Kenny Mitchell. 2017. IRIDiuM+: Deep Media Storytelling with Non-Linear Light Field Video. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2017 VR Village (Los Angeles, California) (SIGGRAPH ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 10, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3089269.3089277Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. U. Kühnapfel, H. K. Çakmak, and H. Maaß. 2000. Endoscopic surgery training using virtual reality and deformable tissue simulation. Computers and Graphics (Pergamon) 24, 5 (oct 2000), 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0097-8493(00)00070-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Vova Kurbatov. 2019. Draw Sketches for Virtual Reality Like a Pro. http://vovakurbatov.com/articles/draw-sketches-for-virtual-reality-like-a-proGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Adam Kvisgaard, Sune Ollgaard Klem, Thomas Lund Nielsen, Eoin Ivan Rafferty, Niels Christian Nilsson, Emil Rosenlund Hoeg, and Rolf Nordahl. 2019. Frames to Zones: Applying Mise-en-Scène Techniques in Cinematic Virtual Reality. In 2019 IEEE 5th Workshop on Everyday Virtual Reality, WEVR 2019. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/WEVR.2019.8809592Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Andrei O. J. Kwok and Sharon G. M. Koh. 2020. COVID-19 and Extended Reality (XR). Current Issues in Tourism (jul 2020), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1798896Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Joseph J. LaViola. 2000. A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 32, 1 (jan 2000), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/333329.333344Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Yen-Chen Lin, Yung-Ju Chang, Hou-Ning Hu, Hsien-Tzu Cheng, Chi-Wen Huang, and Min Sun. 2017. Tell Me Where to Look: Investigating Ways for Assisting Focus in 360°  Video. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vol. 2017-May. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2535–2545. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025757Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yung-Ta Lin, Yi-Chi Liao, Shan-Yuan Teng, Yi-Ju Chung, Liwei Chan, and Bing-Yu Chen. 2017. Outside-In: Visualizing Out-of-Sight Regions-of-Interest in a 360 Video Using Spatial Picture-in-Picture Previews. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1145/3126594.3126656Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Romy Lorenz, Javier Pascual, Benjamin Blankertz, and Carmen Vidaurre. 2014. Towards a holistic assessment of the user experience with hybrid BCIs. Journal of Neural Engineering 11, 3 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/11/3/035007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Robert L. Matchock, Max E. Levine, Peter J. Gianaros, and Robert M. Stern. 2008. Susceptibility to Nausea and Motion Sickness as a Function of the Menstrual Cycle. Women’s Health Issues 18, 4 (jul 2008), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2008.01.006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. John Mateer. 2017. Directing for Cinematic Virtual Reality: how the traditional film director’s craft applies to immersive environments and notions of presence. Journal of Media Practice 18, 1 (jan 2017), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2017.1305838Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Rory Mccloy and Robert Stone. 2001. Virtual reality in surgery. BMJ 323, 7318 (oct 2001), 912–915. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7318.912Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Miguel Melo, José Vasconcelos-Raposo, and Maximino Bessa. 2018. Presence and cybersickness in immersive content: Effects of content type, exposure time and gender. Computers and Graphics (Pergamon) 71 (apr 2018), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2017.11.007Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Justin Maximilian Mittelstaedt, Jan Wacker, and Dirk Stelling. 2019. VR aftereffect and the relation of cybersickness and cognitive performance. Virtual Reality 23, 2 (jun 2019), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0370-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. James W Moore. 2016. What Is the Sense of Agency and Why Does it Matter?Frontiers in psychology 7 (aug 2016), 1272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01272Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Justin Munafo, Meg Diedrick, and Thomas A Stoffregen. 2017. The virtual reality head-mounted display Oculus Rift induces motion sickness and is sexist in its effects. Experimental Brain Research 235 (2017), 889–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4846-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. David Narciso, Maximino Bessa, Miguel Melo, António Coelho, and José Vasconcelos-Raposo. 2019. Immersive 360°  video user experience: impact of different variables in the sense of presence and cybersickness. Universal Access in the Information Society 18, 1 (2019), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0581-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Katy Newton and Karin Soukup. 2016. The storyteller’s guide to the virtual reality audience. The Standford D. School(2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Susanna Nilsson, Björn Johansson, and Arne Jönsson. 2010. A Holistic Approach to Design and Evaluation of Mixed Reality Systems. In The Engineering of Mixed Reality Systems, Emmanuel Dubois, Phil Gray, and Laurence Nigay (Eds.). Springer London, Chapter A Holistic, 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-733-2_3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Donald A. Norman. 2007. Simplicity is highly overrated. interactions 14, 2 (mar 2007), 40. https://doi.org/10.1145/1229863.1229885Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Oculus. 2020. Oculus Quest 2: Our Most Advanced All-in-One VR Headset. https://www.oculus.com/quest-2/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Michael R Ogden. 2019. The Next Innovation in Immersive [Actuality] Media Isn’t Technology- It’s Storytelling. In Proceedings of The Asian Conference on Media, Communication & Film 2019. The International Academic Forum (IAFOR), Tokyo, JP, 97–112. https://papers.iafor.org/submission52910/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Marc Pallot and Kulwant Pawar. 2012. A holistic model of user experience for living lab experiential design. In 2012 18th International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation. IEEE, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2012.6297648Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Julian Petford, Iain Carson, Miguel A. Nacenta, and Carl Gutwin. 2019. A comparison of guiding techniques for out-of-view objects in full-coverage displays. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, New York, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300288Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Jayesh S. Pillai, Azif Ismail, and Herold P. Charles. 2017. Grammar of VR storytelling: Visual cues. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, New York, USA, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3110292.3110300Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Vanessa C. Pope, Robert Dawes, Florian Schweiger, and Alia Sheikh. 2017. The geometry of storytelling: Theatrical use of space for 360-degree videos and virtual reality. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings 2017-May (2017), 4468–4478. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025581Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Somaiieh Rokhsaritalemi, Abolghasem Sadeghi-Niaraki, and Soo-Mi Choi. 2020. A Review on Mixed Reality: Current Trends, Challenges and Prospects. Applied Sciences 10, 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10020636Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Sylvia Rothe, Daniel Buschek, and Heinrich Hußmann. 2019. Guidance in Cinematic Virtual Reality-Taxonomy, Research Status and Challenges. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 3, 1 (mar 2019), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti3010019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Sylvia Rothe and Heinrich Hußmann. 2018. Guiding the viewer in cinematic virtual reality by diegetic cues. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 10850 LNCS. Springer Verlag, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95270-3_7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Sylvia Rothe and Heinrich Hussmann. 2019. Spaceline: A concept for interaction in cinematic virtual reality. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 11869 LNCS. Springer, 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33894-7_12Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Ján Sabol. 2018. Theatrical Mise-En-Scene In Film Form. Slovenske divadlo /The Slovak Theatre 66, 3 (oct 2018), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.2478/sd-2018-0017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Camille Sagnier, Emilie Loup-Escande, and Gérard Valléry. 2020. Effects of gender and prior experience in immersive user experience with virtual reality. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 972. Springer Verlag, 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19135-1_30Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Xiumin Shang, Marcelo Kallmann, and Ahmed Sabbir Arif. 2020. Effects of virtual agent gender on user performance and preference in a VR training program. In Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Vol. 69. Springer, 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12388-8_34Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Alia Sheikh, Andy Brown, Zillah Watson, and Michael Evans. 2016. Directing attention in 360-degree video. In IBC 2016 Conference. Institution of Engineering and Technology, 29. https://doi.org/10.1049/ibc.2016.0029Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Błażej Skrzypulec. 2019. The nonclassical mereology of olfactory experiences. Synthese (January 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02072-xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Andrej Somrak, Iztok Humar, M. Shamim Hossain, Mohammed F. Alhamid, M. Anwar Hossain, and Jože Guna. 2019. Estimating VR Sickness and user experience using different HMD technologies: An evaluation study. Future Generation Computer Systems 94 (2019), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.11.041Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Kay M. Stanney and Robert S. Kennedy. 1997. The Psychometrics of Cybersickness. Commun. ACM 40, 8 (aug 1997), 66–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/257874.257889Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Statista. 2021. Extended Reality (XR): AR, VR, and MR - Statistics & Facts. https://www.statista.com/topics/6072/extended-reality-xr/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Ayoung Suh and Jane Prophet. 2018. The state of immersive technology research: A literature analysis. Computers in Human Behavior 86 (2018), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. The Jaunt Team. 2018. The Cinematic VR Field Guide. https://creator.oculus.com/learn/cinematic-vr-field-guide/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. H. G. Townsend and J. C. Smuts. 1928. Holism and Evolution.The Philosophical Review 37, 1 (jan 1928), 85–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2179530Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Peiling Wang, William B Hawk, and Carol Tenopir. 2000. Users’ interaction with World Wide Web resources: An exploratory study using a holistic approach. Information processing & management 36, 2 (2000), 229–251.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Séamas Weech, Sophie Kenny, and Michael Barnett-Cowan. 2019. Presence and Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Are Negatively Related: A Review. Frontiers in Psychology 10, FEB (feb 2019), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00158Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Bob G. Witmer and Michael J. Singer. 1998. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 3 (06 1998), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686 arXiv:https://direct.mit.edu/pvar/article-pdf/7/3/225/1836425/105474698565686.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Michael Zryd. 1994. Bill Nichols. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991; Michael Renov, ed. Theorizing Documentary. AFI Film Reader series, New York: Routledge, 1993. Canadian Journal of Film Studies 3, 1 (mar 1994), 83–86. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjfs.3.1.83Google 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
    C&C '22: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition
    June 2022
    710 pages
    ISBN:9781450393270
    DOI:10.1145/3527927

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 20 June 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate108of371submissions,29%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)95
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format