Communication behaviors of co-located users in collaborative AR interfaces

We conducted two experiments comparing communication behaviors of co-located users in collaborative augmented reality (AR) interfaces. In the first experiment, we compared optical, stereo- and mono-video, and immersive head mounted displays (HMDs) using a target identification task. It was found that differences in the real world visibility severely affect communication behaviors. The optical see-through case produced the best results with the least extra communication needed. Generally, the more difficult it was to use non-verbal communication cues, the more people resorted to speech cues to compensate. In the second experiment, we compared three different combinations of task and communication spaces using a 2D icon design task with optical see-through HMDs. It was found that the spatial relationship between the task and communication spaces also severely affected communication behaviors. Placing the task space between the subjects produced the most active behaviors in terms of initiatory body languages and utterances with least miscommunications.

[1]  Naokazu Yokoya,et al.  SeamlessDesign for 3D Object Creation , 2000, IEEE Multim..

[2]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Video-Mediated Communication , 1997 .

[3]  Ederyn Williams,et al.  Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. , 1977 .

[4]  John C. McCarthy,et al.  Measuring the quality of computer-mediated communication , 1994, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[5]  Mark Billinghurst,et al.  Out and About — Real World Teleconferencing , 2000 .

[6]  John C. McCarthy,et al.  Measures of Process , 1996 .

[7]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk With Technology , 1995, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  Christian Heath,et al.  Media Space and Communicative Asymmetries: Preliminary Observations of Video-Mediated Interaction , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[9]  A. Takagi,et al.  Development of a stereo video see-through HMD for AR systems , 2000, Proceedings IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Augmented Reality (ISAR 2000).

[10]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Iterative design of seamless collaboration media , 1994, CACM.

[11]  William W. Gaver The affordances of media spaces for collaboration , 1992, CSCW '92.

[12]  Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon,et al.  Face-to-face and video mediated communication: a comparison of dialogue structure and task performance , 1997 .

[13]  Hideyuki Tamura,et al.  AR/sup 2/Hockey: a case study of collaborative augmented reality , 1998, Proceedings. IEEE 1998 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (Cat. No.98CB36180).

[14]  John C. Tang,et al.  Why do users like video? , 1992, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[15]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Some advantages of video conferencing over high-quality audio conferencing: fluency and awareness of attentional focus , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..