Examining the Effects of Immersive and Non-Immersive Presenter Modalities on Engagement and Social Interaction in Co-located Augmented Presentations

TL;DR

This study investigates how symmetric (head-worn AR for both presenter and audience) versus asymmetric (tablet presenter) modalities affect engagement, group awareness, and social interaction in co-located augmented presentations, always with AR for the audience. A prototype system enabling 2D/3D content in AR is evaluated in a mixed within-/between-subject study involving $n=12$ dyads, yielding four qualitative themes and practical design guidelines. Findings indicate both modalities bring benefits: symmetric setups enhance shared context and group awareness, while asymmetric setups can improve social cues and eye contact, albeit potentially reducing common ground. The work contributes design guidelines for immersive presentation systems, addresses referential awareness, and outlines future work to improve accessibility, scalability, and social presence in mixed-reality presentations.

Abstract

Head-worn augmented reality (AR) allows audiences to be immersed and engaged in stories told by live presenters. While presenters may also be in AR to have the same level of immersion and awareness as their audience, this symmetric presentation style may diminish important social cues such as eye contact. In this work, we examine the effects this (a)symmetry has on engagement, group awareness, and social interaction in co-located one-on-one augmented presentations. We developed a presentation system incorporating 2D/3D content that audiences can view and interact with in AR, with presenters controlling and delivering the presentation in either a symmetric style in AR, or an asymmetric style with a handheld tablet. We conducted a within- and between-subjects evaluation with 12 participant pairs to examine the differences between these symmetric and asymmetric presentation modalities. From our findings, we extracted four themes and derived strategies and guidelines for designers interested in augmented presentations.

Figures (4)

• Figure 1: Screenshots from our augmented presentation system in use. (a) Symmetric presenter interface (close-up view). Features: (1) Button to toggle a mirrored view showing a simulated view from the audience's perspective. When activated, the simulated mirrored audience view appears directly above the pictured interface. (2) Speaker notes to guide the presenter on the presentation. (3) Scene switcher with a carousel view of previews of each scene in the presentation. (b) "Zoomed out" presenter's view of the presenter interface, the presentation content, and the audience. (c) Asymmetric presenter interface for the tablet. Features: (1) Simulated mirrored audience view. The presenter can tap on the virtual content to cast a virtual pointer ray. The presenter can press the hand icon button to switch to map interaction mode, allowing them to zoom the map by pinching with two fingers or pan the map by moving one finger. (2) Speaker notes. (3) Scene switcher. (4) Top-down view with simulated audience head to visualize the audience's position and orientation relative to the presentation content. The presenter can tap the presentation surfaces shown in this view (the map and the slide behind the map) to stabilize the simulated camera view so that it focuses on these objects. (d) Audience's perspective of the presenter using the virtual pointing ray when using the asymmetric presentation modality.
• Figure 2: Box plots for questionnaire responses. (a) Average presenter scores for the mental demand (lower is easier), physical demand (lower is easier), and performance (higher is better) categories of the NASA-TLX hart2006tlx. (b) Average scores for questions about group awareness. Points represent individual participant responses and are colored by presentation group and presenter: within a presenter modality, points of the same color represent participants in the same presentation session; across presenter modalities, points of the same color represent the same presenter participant. (c) Average scores for questions about the presenter's ability to engage the audience in the presentation and the audience's ratings of their engagement in the presentation. Points represent individual participant responses and are colored by presentation group and presenter.
• Figure 3: Box plots showing social interactions for each presentation modality. Points are colored by presentation group and presenter: within a presenter modality, points of the same color represent participants in the same presentation session; across presenter modalities, points of the same color represent the same presenter participant. (a) Total number of social expressions (gesturing to each other, nodding at each other, smiling at each other, and laughing) observed for each participant and each presenter modality. (b) Percentage of presentation time participants looked at each other. (c) Number of times participants made eye contact during the presentation. (d) Percentage of the presentation during which participants made eye contact (i.e., looked at each other simultaneously).
• Figure 4: Participant referencing behaviors. (a) Box plot of the total number of references participants made during a presentation for each participant and each presenter modality. Points represent individual participants and are colored by presentation group and presenter: within a presenter modality, points of the same color represent participants in the same presentation session; across presenter modalities, points of the same color represent the same presenter participant. (b) Box plot showing the counts of referencing behaviors observed in a presentation session for each participant type and each presenter modality, including pointing to virtual objects, using deictic speech (e.g., "this object"), using relative language (e.g., "to the left"), using a property reference (e.g., "the orange cylinder"), using reference chaining (e.g., "next to the last object referenced").