skip to main content
10.1145/2993148.2997618acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesicmi-mlmiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Player/Avatar body relations in multimodal augmented reality games

Published:31 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Augmented reality research is finally moving towards multimodal experiences: more and more applications do not only include visuals, but also audio and even haptics. The purpose of multimodality in these applications can be to increase realism or to increase the amount or quality of communicated information. One particularly interesting and increasingly important application area is AR gaming, where the player can experience the virtual game integrated into the real environment and interact with it in a multimodal fashion. Currently, many games are set up such that the interaction is local (direct), however there are many cases in which remote (indirect) interaction will be useful or even necessary. In the latter case, the actions can be expressed through a virtual avatar, while the player's real body is also still perceivably present. The player then controls the motions and actions of the avatar, and receives multimodal feedback associated to the events occurring in the game. Can it be that the player starts to perceive the avatar as a (part of) him- or herself? Or does something even more intense take place? What are the benefits of this experience? The core of this research is to understand how multimodal perceptual configuration plays a role in the relation between a player and their in-game avatar.

References

  1. P. Bayliss. Beings in the game-world: characters, avatars, and players. In Proceedings of the 4th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment, number 4. RMIT University, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. B. Forster, C. Cavina-Pratesi, S. M. Aglioti, and G. Berlucchi. Redundant target effect and intersensory facilitation from visual-tactile interactions in simple reaction time. Experimental Brain Research, 143(4):480–487, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. B. Goldiez and J. Dawson. Is presence present in augmented reality systems. In Proceedings of Presence 2004. VII. International Workshop on Presence, pages 294–297, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. W. Hürst, N. Rosa, and J.-P. van Bommel. Vibrotactile experiences for augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Multimedia Conference. ACM, 2016. (Accepted). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. W. IJsselsteijn, Y. De Kort, and A. Haans. Is this my hand i see before me? the rubber hand illusion in reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality. Presence, 15(4):455–464, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. P. Martin. A phenomenological account of the playing body in avatar-based action game. In Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, pages 29–31, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. N. Rosa, W. Hürst, W. Vos, and P. Werkhoven. The influence of visual cues on passive tactile sensations in a multimodal immersive virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pages 327–334. ACM, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N. Rosa, W. Hürst, P. Werkhoven, and R. Veltkamp. Visuotactile integration for depth perception in augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction. ACM, 2016. (Accepted). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. B. Thomas. A survey of visual, mixed, and augmented reality gaming. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 10(1):3, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. van Erp, F. Kooi, A. Bronkhorst, D. van Leeuwen, M. van Esch, and S. van Wijngaarden. Multimodal interfaces: a framework based on modality appropriateness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, volume 50, pages 1542–1546. SAGE Publications, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Y. Visell. Tactile sensory substitution: Models for enaction in hci. Interacting with Computers, 21(1-2):38–53, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. F. ˇ Skola, S. Fialek, and F. Liarokapis. Augmenting the rubber hand illusion. ERCIM News, 2015. Special Theme: Augmented Reality.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. U. Wilhelmsson. What is a game ego: or how the embodied mind plays a role in computer game environments. Affective and emotional aspects of human-computer interaction: Game-based and innovative learning approaches, pages 45–58, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Player/Avatar body relations in multimodal augmented reality games

        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
          ICMI '16: Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
          October 2016
          605 pages
          ISBN:9781450345569
          DOI:10.1145/2993148

          Copyright © 2016 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: 31 October 2016

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate453of1,080submissions,42%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader