getting real about ar
TRANSCRIPT
50 Years of Progress
• From lab to living room • AR devices in every pocket
1998 vs. 2008
CPU: 300 Mhz HDD; 9GB RAM: 512 mb Camera: VGA 30fps Graphics: 500K poly/sec
1998: SGI O2 2008: Nokia N95
CPU: 332 Mhz HDD; 8GB RAM: 128 mb Camera: VGA 30 fps Graphics: 2m poly/sec
AR Business Today
• Around $600 Million USD in 2014 (>$2B 2015) • > 80% Games and Marketing applications
Market Projections
cf. 2014 computer game market = $84 Billion
Crossing the Chasm
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3114217
Getting from Here to There • New markets
• Medical, Education, Industry • New types of applications
• Training, Information Presentation, Collaboration • New devices/platforms
• Head mounted displays, projected AR • New Interaction Techniques
• Gesture based, empathic interfaces, multimodal
2012 – Iron Man 2
AR for Industrial Training
• Potential Benefits • Training on target equipment • Showing spatial information in place • Allow worker to remain focused on work site • Able to view content from any angle
Case Study 1: Vehicle Maintenance
• Using AR for armoured vehicle maintence
Henderson, S. J., & Feiner, S. (2009, October). Evaluating the benefits of augmented reality for task localization in maintenance of an armored personnel carrier turret. In ISMAR 2009. 8th IEEE International Symposium on (pp. 135-144). IEEE.
Current System
• Electronic Manual on laptop computer • 2D images, pdf, fixed views
Interfaces
• Three display conditions • AR, HUD, LCD panel • Using stereo video-see through AR HMD system
AR HUD LCD
Experiment • 6 Mechanics as subjects • Subjects completed 18 common tasks
• Installing fasteners, connecting cables, etc
• Measured • Performance time, localisation time • Errors made • Head movement, exertion • Subjective feedback (satisfaction, intuitiveness)
Key Results • No difference in times between AR & LCD
• But LCD (34.5s) faster than HUD (55.2s) • AR able to locate task areas faster
• 4.9s in AR, vs 9.2s in LCD, vs. 11.1s in HUD • Fewer head motions in AR
• Typically 50% less motions than other conditions • AR rated as good as LCD in satisfaction • AR rated as most intuitive of conditions
Case Study 2: Boeing & Iowa State
• Work instructions presented in 3 conditions • Desktop interface • Tablet interface • Tablet AR interface
T. Richardson, S. Gilbert, J. Holub, F. Thompson, A. MacAllister, R. Radkowski, E. Winer, P. Davies, and S. Terry. "Fusing Self-Reported and Sensor Data from Mixed-Reality Training."
Desktop Interface Tablet AR Interface
Experiment Design • Reproduced industrial work cell
• Task • Subjects completed a five-step physical assembly process
• Data Collected • User motion, activity analysis • Task performance (accuracy, completion time) • Time looking at instructions, moving between work areas • Subjective feedback
Results
• Users liked AR condition the best • Fewer errors in AR condition, faster performance time
• AR has 30% faster performance, 90% few errors
Performance Time Errors
Commercial Systems • Ngrain
• http://www.ngrain.com/ • Training authoring tool • Model based AR tracking
• ScopeAR • http://www.scopear.com/ • Remote assistance • Image based tracking
Ngrain
Intelligent Training • Most AR systems stupid
• Don’t recognize user behaviour • Don’t provide feedback • Don’t adapt to user
• Especially important for training • Scaffolded learning • Moving beyond check-lists of actions
Intelligent Interfaces
• AR interface + intelligent tutoring system • ASPIRE constraint based system (from UC) • Constraints
• relevance cond., satisfaction cond., feedback
Westerfield, G., Mitrovic, A., & Billinghurst, M. (2013). Intelligent Augmented Reality Training for Assembly Tasks. In Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 542-551). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Domain Ontology
Intelligent Feedback
• Actively monitors user behaviour • Implicit vs. explicit interaction
• Provides corrective feedback
Evaluation Results
• 16 subjects, with and without ITS • Improved task completion
• Improved learning
Intelligent Agents
• AR characters • Virtual embodiment of system • Multimodal input/output
• Examples • AR Lego, Welbo, etc • Mr Virtuoso
• AR character more real, more fun • On-screen 3D and AR similar in usefulness
Wagner, D., Billinghurst, M., & Schmalstieg, D. (2006). How real should virtual characters be?. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGCHI international conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology (p. 57). ACM.
Conclusions • AR is becoming commonly available
• In order to achieve significant growth AR needs to • Expand into new markets • Move onto new platforms • Create new types of applications
• AR for Training is a particularly promising area • Spatial skills, intelligent interfaces
