Fostering the AR illusion: a study of how people interact with a shared artifact in collocated augmented reality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Augmented Reality (AR) is a technology that overlays virtual objects on a physical environment. The illusion afforded by AR is that these virtual artifacts can be treated like physical ones, allowing people to view them from different perspectives and point at them knowing that others see them in the same place. Despite extensive research in AR, there has been surprisingly little research into how people embrace this AR illusion, and in what ways the illusion breaks down. In this paper, we report the results of an exploratory, mixed methods study with six pairs of participants playing the novel Sightline AR game. The study showed that participants changed physical position and pose to view virtual artifacts from different perspectives and engaged in conversations around the artifacts. Being able to see the real environment allowed participants to maintain awareness of other participants’ actions and locus of attention. Players largely entered the illusion of interacting with a shared physical/virtual artifact, but some interactions broke the illusion, such as pointing into space. Some participants reported fatigue around holding their tablet devices and taking on uncomfortable poses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it