Touching the Past: Haptic Augmented Reality for Museum Artefacts

Dima, Mariza; Hurcombe, Linda; Wright, Mark

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07464-1_1

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dima et al. () carried out an evaluation on a small 3D printed replica of a chess piece using the theatrical projection technique known as “Pepper's Ghost”, reporting positive results from visitors who handled the print. Marshall et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Touchable 3D‐Printed Replicas in Museums

Wilson¹,

Stott²,

Warnett³

et al. 2017

Curator The Museum Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multisensory aspect of the museum, while neglected for many years, is undergoing a resurgence as museum workers have begun to push towards re-establishing the senses as a major component of museum pedagogy. However, for many museums a major roadblock lies in the need to conserve rare objects, a need that prevents visitors from being able to interact with many objects in a meaningful way. This issue can be potentially overcome by the rapidly evolving field of 3D printing, which allows museum visitors to handle authentic replicas without damaging the originals. However, little is known about how museum visitors consider this approach, how they understand it and whether these surrogates are welcome within museums. A front-end evaluation of this approach is presented, finding that visitors were enthusiastic about interacting with touchable 3D printed replicas, highlighting potential educational benefits among other considerations. Suggestions about the presentation of touchable 3D printed replicas are also discussed. Paul F. Wilson (P.Wilson.4@warwick.ac.uk 07701333142): PhD Student, Warwick Manufacturing

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Dima et al. ; Marshall et al. ) although the number of studies that evaluate this latter approach is limited (Di Franco et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Touchable 3D‐Printed Replicas in Museums

Wilson¹,

Stott²,

Warnett³

et al. 2017

Curator The Museum Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, 3D technologies provide a privileged vehicle for engaging users with material culture [53][54][55]. Haptic interfaces and printed replicas can enable both tactile and kinaesthetic feedback and simulate the physical properties of original materials: the user can go beyond the simple appreciation of shape and color and can now sense the weight, structure, texture, and friction of the object [56,57].…”

Section: Solid Printing In Museum Exhibitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Application of Integrated 3D Technologies for Replicas in Cultural Heritage

Balletti

Ballarin

2019

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, 3D acquisition by laser scanning or digital photogrammetry has become one of the standard methods of documenting cultural heritage, because it permits one to analyze the shape, geometry, and location of any artefact without necessarily coming into contact with it. The recording of three-dimensional metrical data of an asset allows one to preserve and monitor, but also to understand and explain the history and cultural heritage shared. In essence, it constitutes a digital archive of the state of an artefact, which can be used for various purposes, be remodeled, or kept safely stored. With the introduction of 3D printing, digital data can once again take on material form and become physical objects from the corresponding mathematical models in a relatively short time and often at low cost. This possibility has led to a different consideration of the concept of virtual data, no longer necessarily linked to simple visual fruition. The importance of creating high-resolution physical copies has been reassessed in light of different types of events that increasingly threaten the protection of cultural heritage. The aim of this research is to analyze the critical issues in the production process of the replicas, focusing on potential problems in data acquisition and processing and on the accuracy of the resulting 3D printing. The metric precision of the printed model with 3D technology are fundamental for everything concerning geomatics and must be related to the same characteristics of the digital model obtained through the survey analysis.

show abstract

“…Neuroscience research on learning also supports a connection between multisensory learning and memory encoding (Spence and Gallace, 2008;Lacey and Sathian, 2014;Ward, 2014;Reeve and Woollard, 2015). Implementations of 3D printed examples of multisensory experiences also seem to be successful although, but to date only simple investigations into user experience (Dima et al 2014;Marshall et al 2016) and recommendations of its use have emerged (Rahman et al 2012;Leakey and Dzamabova, 2013;Laycock et al 2015;Du Plessis et al 2015;Wilson et al 2017b). As yet, little is known about how useful 3D printed replicas are as pedagogical tools for museum learning and user experience and thus, investigation into how 3D printed replicas can enhance the learning experience of visitors is required.…”

Section: Further Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others demonstrate the potential of this technology using 'smart replicas', 3D printed models with implanted chips that trigger auxiliary content within a museum exhibition (Capurro et al 2014;Marshall et al 2016;Balletti et al 2017). Others use 3D prints within standard exhibitions to allow visitors hands on experience with 3D printed replicas during their visit (Dima et al 2014;Schwandt and Weinhold, 2014;Callieri et al 2015). 3D printed replicas and tactile reliefs have also been used to assist BPS visitors in interpreting images, paintings and large structures (Neumüller and Reichinger, 2013;Götzelmann, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%