Marker-less feature and gesture detection for an interactive mixed reality avatar

Moreno, Isidro; Prakash, Edmond C.; Loaiza, Diego Fernando; Lozada, Diego A.; Newball, Andrés Adolfo Navarro

doi:10.1109/stsiva.2015.7330433

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Onime et al (2015a, b), Ginters et al (2013) and Zollmann et al (2014) all show examples of virtual (sensor) markers based mixed reality systems. Virtual markers do not suffer from the issues such as visual obstruction that affect abstract or blended markers and may involve less coding, processing and prior preparation of the environment (Moreno et al , 2015). With the deployment and use of internet of things (IoT) sensors, many users believe that wireless technology is useful.…”

Section: Reclassification Into Simple Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are already several approaches for markerless mixed reality systems from advanced image recognition techniques (sometimes involving machine learning) to the use of hand-held wands and/or natural interaction devices (the Kinect sensor) that incorporate wireless transceivers (Moreno et al , 2015). The particular approach used for implementing a markerless mixed reality environment is governed by several factors including the intended application, complexity of environment and available computational power.…”

Section: Application Of New Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A reclassification of markers for mixed reality environments

Onime

Uhomoibhi

Wang

et al. 2020

IJILT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper presents a reclassification of markers for mixed reality environments that is also applicable to the use of markers in robot navigation systems and 3D modelling. In the case of Augmented Reality (AR) mixed reality environments, markers are used to integrate computer generated (virtual) objects into a predominantly real world, while in Augmented Virtuality (AV) mixed reality environments, the goal is to integrate real objects into a predominantly virtual (computer generated) world. Apart from AR/AV classifications, mixed reality environments have also been classified by reality; output technology/display devices; immersiveness as well as by visibility of markers.Design/methodology/approachThe approach adopted consists of presenting six existing classifications of mixed reality environments and then extending them to define new categories of abstract, blended, virtual augmented, active and smart markers. This is supported with results/examples taken from the joint Mixed Augmented and Virtual Reality Laboratory (MAVRLAB) of the Ulster University, Belfast, Northern Ireland; the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste, Italy and Santasco SrL, Regio Emilia/Milan, Italy.FindingsExisting classification of markers and mixed reality environments are mainly binary in nature and do not adequately capture the contextual relationship between markers and their use and application. The reclassification of markers into abstract, blended and virtual categories captures the context for simple use and applications while the categories of augmented, active and smart markers captures the relationship for enhanced or more complex use of markers. The new classifications are capable of improving the definitions of existing simple marker and markerless mixed reality environments as well as supporting more complex features within mixed reality environments such as co-location of objects, advanced interactivity, personalised user experience.Research limitations/implicationsIt is thought that applications and devices in mixed reality environments when properly developed and deployed enhances the real environment by making invisible information visible to the user. The current work only marginally covers the use of internet of things (IoT) devices in mixed reality environments as well as potential implications for robot navigation systems and 3D modelling.Practical implicationsThe use of these reclassifications enables researchers, developers and users of mixed reality environments to select and make informed decisions on best tools and environment for their respective application, while conveying information with additional clarity and accuracy. The development and application of more complex markers would contribute in no small measure to attaining greater advancements in extending current knowledge and developing applications to positively impact entertainment, business and health while minimizing costs and maximizing benefits.Originality/valueThe originality of this paper lies in the approach adopted in reclassifying markers. This is supported with results and work carried out at the MAV Reality Laboratory of Ulster University, Belfast–UK, the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste-Italy and Santasco SrL, Regio Emilia, Milan–Italy. The value of present research lies in the definitions of new categories as well as the discussions of how they improve mixed reality environments and application especially in the health and education sectors.

show abstract

Section: Reclassification Into Simple Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Application Of New Categoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reclassification of markers for mixed reality environments

Onime

Uhomoibhi

Wang

et al. 2020

IJILT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Virtual Humans in Museums and Cultural Heritage Sites

Sylaiou

Fidas

2022

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the results of a survey on the use of digital avatars and agents in museums and places of cultural interest. The optimization of virtual agents in the cultural heritage domain is an interdisciplinary undertaking and this paper investigates pertinent research and solutions and suggests ways forward. The research questions examined relate to (a) the technological characteristics of cultural heritage-related uses of users’ avatars and virtual agents, and patterns that emerge, and (b) suggestions for future research based on this article’s findings. We reviewed relevant publications and analysed the approaches presented to identify trends and issues that could lead to conclusions on the existing state of the field and, moreover, infer and suggest future directions. The main findings relate to a trend toward onsite, sophisticated installations or applications with increasing investment in mixed reality. Moreover, emphasis shifts toward optimising agents such as virtual guides or companions, mediators of cultural content and engaging facilitators. Behavioural Realism (BR), featured mostly in virtual reality installations, greatly fosters engagement according to the reviewed research, and we conclude that mixed reality onsite applications, which are gathering pace, should reach their degree of sophistication and combine the strengths of both MR and BR.

show abstract

Marker-less feature and gesture detection for an interactive mixed reality avatar

Cited by 2 publications

References 18 publications

A reclassification of markers for mixed reality environments

A reclassification of markers for mixed reality environments

Virtual Humans in Museums and Cultural Heritage Sites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About