Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Yuki Sannohe

dblp:68/7010 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Virtual and augmented reality · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Virtual and augmented reality › immersive interaction
co-located collaboration
0.012002
Communication Behaviors of Co-Located Users in Collaborative AR Interfaces · ISMAR 2002
Virtual and augmented reality
immersive interaction
0.012002
Communication Behaviors of Co-Located Users in Collaborative AR Interfaces · ISMAR 2002

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

target identification task · 0.02d icon design task · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 Communication Behaviors of Co-Located Users in Collaborative AR Interfaces
abstract
We conducted two experiments comparing communication behaviors of co-located users in collaborative augmented reality (AR) interfaces. In the first experiment, we compared optical, stereo- and mono-video, and immersive head mounted displays (HMDs) using a target identification task. It was found that differences in the real world visibility severely affect communication behaviors. The optical see-through case produced the best results with the least extra communication needed. Generally, the more difficult it was to use non-verbal communication cues, the more people resorted to speech cues to compensate. In the second experiment, we compared three different combinations of task and communication spaces using a 2D icon design task with optical see-through HMDs. It was found that the spatial relationship between the task and communication spaces also severely affected communication behaviors. Placing the task space between the subjects produced the most active behaviors in terms of initiatory body languages and utterances with least miscommunications.
Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, Mark Billinghurst, Sean Hayes, Anoop Gupta, Yuki Sannohe, Hirokazu Kato 0001
ISMAR5