Creating different learning experiences: assessment of usability factors in an interactive three-dimensional holographic projection system for experiential learning

Innovative interfaces for the display and control of information constitute an essential topic for interactive experiential learning. In this study, an interactive three-dimensional (3D) holographic projection system was developed. This system was used in a physiology-based experiential learning experiment. Learners used noncontact somatosensory methods to manipulate 3D learning objects (targets) and learned the characteristics of physiological structures in a 3D holographic projection environment. The learners did not require a physical button interface. Embodied gesture recognition was implemented in this interactive system. Furthermore, this study explored the system’s usability factors to improve the human–computer interaction and availability of the system. A total of 60 participants (30 female and 30 male) participated in a usability experiment for this 3D interactive holographic projection learning system. The participants were required to complete an interactive experiential learning task concerning the physiological structures of human organs. At the end of the task, each participant was asked to complete a questionnaire featuring 5-point Likert scales. Four crucial system usability factors were proposed through principal component analysis. These factors included ‘labelling’, ‘continuity’, ‘backlash’, and ‘ambiences’. Gender had no significant effect on any of these factors (p > 0.05). Further, the learner’s experiential learning characteristics and human–computer interaction modality are described based on the results of the usability study.

[1]  Robert M. Davison,et al.  Employee creativity formation: The roles of knowledge seeking, knowledge contributing and flow experience in Web 2.0 virtual communities , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[2]  Tomoyoshi Shimobaba,et al.  Holographic projection of images with step-less zoom and noise suppression by pixel separation , 2015 .

[3]  Ruzena Bajcsy,et al.  User experience and interaction performance in 2D/3D telecollaboration , 2018, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[4]  H. Kaiser An index of factorial simplicity , 1974 .

[5]  Henry F. Kaiser,et al.  Alpha factor analysis , 1965, Psychometrika.

[6]  Sundeep Mishra Hologram the future of medicine – From Star Wars to clinical imaging , 2017, Indian heart journal.

[7]  Dong-Hee Shin,et al.  The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality , 2017, Telematics Informatics.

[9]  Ana Paiva,et al.  Affective Interactions: Toward a New Generation of Computer Interfaces? , 2000, IWAI.

[10]  Chi-Chang Chen,et al.  Effects of the Mobile Competitive Game Approach on Students' Learning Attitudes and Flow Experience in Field Trips , 2014, 2014 International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology.

[11]  Leonard C. Mead,et al.  HUMAN FACTORS IN ENGINEERING DESIGN , 1947 .

[12]  Palitha Edirisingha,et al.  Socialisation for learning at a distance in a 3-D multi-user virtual environment , 2009, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[13]  Youngmi Kang,et al.  Experiences of learning flow among Korean adolescents , 2015 .

[14]  Edward Buckley Holographic projector using one lens. , 2010, Optics letters.

[15]  Debbie Stone,et al.  User Interface Design and Evaluation , 2005 .

[16]  Jessie Pallud,et al.  Impact of interactive technologies on stimulating learning experiences in a museum , 2017, Inf. Manag..

[17]  David J. Finch,et al.  Managing emotions: A case study exploring the relationship between experiential learning, emotions, and student performance , 2015 .

[18]  Luigi Gallo,et al.  Evaluation of spatial interaction techniques for virtual heritage applications: A case study of an interactive holographic projection , 2018, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[19]  Gi-Zen Liu,et al.  Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where are the new blue oceans? , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[20]  Maria Frucci,et al.  Experiencing touchless interaction with augmented content on wearable head-mounted displays in cultural heritage applications , 2017, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[21]  Linda K. Kaye,et al.  Exploring flow experiences in cooperative digital gaming contexts , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  Liqiong Deng,et al.  User experience, satisfaction, and continual usage intention of IT , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[23]  Alberto Del Bimbo,et al.  Natural Interfaces to Enhance Visitors' Experiences , 2005, IEEE Multim..

[24]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  Human-Computer Interaction, third edition , 2004 .

[25]  Mark S. Sanders,et al.  Human factors in engineering and design, 7th ed. , 1993 .

[26]  Didier Stricker,et al.  Cognitive Augmented Reality , 2015, Comput. Graph..

[27]  M. Csíkszentmihályi Flow. The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York (HarperPerennial) 1990. , 1990 .

[28]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Designing The User Interface , 2013 .

[29]  Nicole Fruehauf Flow The Psychology Of Optimal Experience , 2016 .

[30]  Miles E. Hansard,et al.  Methods for reducing visual discomfort in stereoscopic 3D: A review , 2016, Signal Process. Image Commun..