Mitigating Technological Anxiety in Mixed Reality Systems: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Yiming Sun
,
Tatsuo Nakajima

Mixed Reality (MR), a term first introduced in 1994, combines the physical and digital worlds, with Augmented Reality (AR) being the most well-known example. Unlike Virtual Reality (VR), which creates a virtual environment that completely isolates users from the real world, MR blends virtual and physical realms, blurring the boundaries between them.

  • human–computer interaction
  • natural interaction
  • mixed reality
  • smart home

1. Background

Mixed Reality (MR), a term first introduced in 1994, combines the physical and digital worlds, with Augmented Reality (AR) being the most well-known example. Unlike Virtual Reality (VR), which creates a virtual environment that completely isolates users from the real world, MR blends virtual and physical realms, blurring the boundaries between them [1][2][3]. Today, MR has evolved beyond its original definition, encompassing environmental understanding, human understanding, spatial sound, location and positioning in both physical and virtual spaces, and collaborative work on 3D assets in mixed reality environments [1]. Furthermore, users can interact with digital content simply by tapping their fingers, opening up even more possibilities for interaction design.
In recent years, the smart home has become a popular concept. Smart homes are comprised of networks and sensors and can be controlled by smartphones through apps. Major international IT companies such as Google, Amazon, and Apple have entered the smart home field [4]. The goal of the smart home is to provide a better quality of user life in terms of energy efficiency, security, convenience, and entertainment [5][6]. However, smart homes are not well accepted in the market. This is caused by various reasons such as distrust and technology anxiety [6][7].
The resistance mentioned earlier can stem from the smart device itself, as its reliability, performance, and controllability can affect users’ adoption intentions. Older and less-educated participants tend to be the most distrustful of IoT and exhibit strong resistance. Additionally, complex services may create negative impressions and emotions in users’ minds [6]. With regards to technology anxiety, Pal et al. argue that some users, particularly older adults, prefer using familiar technology instead of embracing new innovations due to their decreased cognitive and physical abilities [8]. Furthermore, it has been noted that technology anxiety can also exist among the younger population, although limited research has explored this aspect. In recent years, the rapid growth of technology has necessitated individuals to quickly upgrade their knowledge and skills in using new technological products. This constant need for adaptation can lead to feelings of fear and anxiety, particularly among new and untrained users [9]. Even among the digital natives generation, there remains a possibility of digital inequality arising due to digital limitations [10]. These studies all suggest that the cost of learning new technologies and fear of new technologies contribute to technology anxiety. Addressing the issue of technology anxiety requires an essential focus on reducing the learning barriers associated with using new technologies.
Natural interaction is a design paradigm that aims to replicate human behavior in technological applications. It provides an intuitive, entertaining, and non-instructive interaction experience [11]. The natural interaction system design focuses on recognizing congenital and spontaneous human expressions in relation to some object [11][12]. Applying natural interaction can reduce the user’s cognitive load by mimicking familiar user interactions for virtual objects [12]. Natural interaction can include using speech, gestures, and facial expressions to control and interact with technology rather than traditional methods such as buttons and touchscreens [11][13][14][15]. In general, natural interaction allows for more user-friendly interactions with technology.

2. Natural Interaction

The concept of natural interaction has been developed for a long time. Ishii et al. present the idea called “Tangible Bits”. Another work conducted by Rekimoto et al. presents the early rising concept of interaction with the real world [16]. In modern research, natural interaction has been applied widely in various fields and has proved that it can improve the user experience and make interaction joyful. Kyriakou et al. applied natural interaction to a museum AR system. Users can see virtual artifact replicas in their system through the AR application. The AR application is deployed on a low-cost HMD such as Google cardboard. Additionally, they used leap motion to track users’ hands in real time. The experiment results showed that the application was accepted positively among all age groups, and most users felt enjoyment [17]. Another application scenario is a video game. Leibe et al. conducted a study that applied natural interaction to the video game Elder Scrolls V. They use Kinect as a pose recognizer to perform tasks such as “Raise shield” and “Cast spell”. By measuring the “fun value” of natural and native interaction through a questionnaire, they found that natural interaction provides a more enjoyable and intuitive user experience [18]. As the adoption of AR technology has risen, Aliprantis et al. conducted an evaluation of gesture-based natural interaction within an AR context. Despite improvements in their designs, these have not yet received high levels of acceptance due to ongoing challenges with accuracy and complexity [19]. Although the accuracy of gesture recognition has seen significant advancements in recent years, as evidenced by Gloumeau et al.’s development of a six-degrees-of-freedom manipulation technique for virtual objects [20], the steep learning curve associated with this technology remains a formidable challenge.

3. Technology Anxiety

Many studies have been conducted to explore the factors that could influence technology anxiety. Researchers have found that factors such as gender and computer experience have significant correlations with technology anxiety [21][22]. Although numerous papers have mentioned the correlation between age and technology anxiety [7][8], Fernández-Ardèvol et al. hold the opposite opinion that age does not have a strong correlation with technology anxiety [23]. However, other research, such as that by Ivan et al., found that technology anxiety increases when older individuals face younger adults who demonstrate better information and communication technology (ICT) skills [24]. This suggests that multiple factors may influence technology anxiety, and understanding these factors can help facilitate the adoption of new technologies across various user groups.

4. Applying AR/MR Technology for Empowering Learning

AR/MR technology has been extensively adopted in educational and professional training scenarios, demonstrably reducing cognitive load and overcoming learning obstacles. Take, for instance, the work by Cheng et al., who created an AR book. This unique tool supplements standard educational content with virtual elements accessible via AR devices, not only diminishing cognitive load but also amplifying reading motivation [25]. Language learning is another arena where AR/MR technology is making strides. Dalim et al. exploited speech recognition in combination with AR technology to facilitate children’s language acquisition. Their approach noticeably amplified engagement and expedited the learning rate [26]. In the realm of professional training, particularly in medicine, Kobayashi et al. integrated MR into medical training protocols. Their research demonstrated that MR positively impacts acute care, surgical care, and medical science [27]. These examples collectively attest to MR’s potential in alleviating the complexities of both study and professional training. However, current research is lacking in studies focusing on daily-use scenarios, as technology anxiety can be caused by the use of technology in daily life.

5. Smart Home Controller in AR Environment

Although there are many studies related to smart home control, few existing works explore the smart home in an AR environment. Mahroo et al. created an AR smart home framework called HoloHome. The goal of this framework is to allow AR applications on the HoloLens platform to be able to interact with real objects in the physical world. They use Vuforia image processing to locate the home appliance and overlay the virtual version of the home appliance over the real one. Each time the user looks at the specific smart device, the virtual replica is activated and necessary information appears [28].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/fi15060216

References

  1. Microsoft. What Is Mixed Reality?—Mixed Reality. Available online: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/discover/mixed-reality (accessed on 11 April 2023).
  2. Milgram, P.; Kishino, F. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994, 77, 1321–1329.
  3. Speicher, M.; Hall, B.D.; Nebeling, M. What Is Mixed Reality? Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2019; CHI’ 19; pp. 1–15.
  4. Dean, S. Amazon, Samsung, Google, Apple: Big 4 Driving Smart Home Device Sales | Tech Times. Available online: https://www.techtimes.com/articles/192188/20170113/amazon-samsung-google-apple-big-4-driving-smart-home-device-sales.htm (accessed on 11 April 2023).
  5. Wilson, C.; Hargreaves, T.; Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. Benefits and risks of smart home technologies. Energy Policy 2017, 103, 72–83.
  6. Li, W.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Erol, I.; Liu, A. Motivations, barriers and risks of smart home adoption: From systematic literature review to conceptual framework. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 80, 102211.
  7. Tsai, T.H.; Lin, W.Y.; Chang, Y.S.; Chang, P.C.; Lee, M.Y. Technology anxiety and resistance to change behavioral study of a wearable cardiac warming system using an extended TAM for older adults. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227270.
  8. Pal, D.; Funilkul, S.; Charoenkitkarn, N.; Kanthamanon, P. Internet-of-Things and Smart Homes for Elderly Healthcare: An End User Perspective. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 10483–10496.
  9. Achim, N.; Kassim, A.A. Computer Usage: The Impact of Computer Anxiety and Computer Self-efficacy. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 172, 701–708.
  10. Bellini, C.G.P.; Isoni Filho, M.M.; de Moura Junior, P.J.; Pereira, R.d.C.d.F. Self-efficacy and anxiety of digital natives in face of compulsory computer-mediated tasks: A study about digital capabilities and limitations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 59, 49–57.
  11. Baraldi, S.; Bimbo, A.D.; Landucci, L.; Torpei, N. Natural Interaction. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems; Liu, L., ÖZsu, M.T., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 1880–1885.
  12. Valli, A. The design of natural interaction. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2008, 38, 295–305.
  13. Lee, M.; Billinghurst, M.; Baek, W.; Green, R.; Woo, W. A usability study of multimodal input in an augmented reality environment. Virtual Real. 2013, 17, 293–305.
  14. Hilliges, O.; Kim, D.; Izadi, S.; Weiss, M.; Wilson, A. HoloDesk: Direct 3d interactions with a situated see-through display. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012.
  15. Benko, H.; Jota, R.; Wilson, A. MirageTable: Freehand interaction on a projected augmented reality tabletop. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012.
  16. Rekimoto, J.; Nagao, K. The world through the computer: Computer augmented interaction with real world environments. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface and Software Technology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 15–17 November 1995.
  17. Kyriakou, P.; Hermon, S. Can I touch this? Using Natural Interaction in a Museum Augmented Reality System. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 12, e00088.
  18. Nogueira, P.A.; Teófilo, L.F.; Silva, P.B. Multi-modal natural interaction in game design: A comparative analysis of player experience in a large scale role-playing game. J. Multimodal User Interfaces 2015, 9, 105–119.
  19. Aliprantis, J.; Konstantakis, M.; Nikopoulou, R.; Mylonas, P.; Caridakis, G. Natural Interaction in Augmented Reality Context. In Proceedings of the IRCDL, Pisa, Italy, 30 January 2019; pp. 50–61.
  20. Gloumeau, P.C.; Stuerzlinger, W.; Han, J. PinNPivot: Object Manipulation Using Pins in Immersive Virtual Environments. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2021, 27, 2488–2494.
  21. Chua, S.; Chen, D.T.; Wong, A. Computer anxiety and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 1999, 15, 609–623.
  22. Glass, C.T.; Knight, L.A. Cognitive factors in computer anxiety. Cogn. Ther. Res. 1988, 12, 351–366.
  23. Fernández-Ardèvol, M.; Ivan, L. Why Age Is Not that Important? An Ageing Perspective on Computer Anxiety. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for Aging; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 189–200.
  24. Ivan, L.; Schiau, I. Experiencing Computer Anxiety Later in Life: The Role of Stereotype Threat. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design for Aging; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 339–349.
  25. Cheng, K.H. Reading an augmented reality book: An exploration of learners’ cognitive load, motivation, and attitudes. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2017, 33.
  26. Che Dalim, C.S.; Sunar, M.S.; Dey, A.; Billinghurst, M. Using augmented reality with speech input for non-native children’s language learning. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2020, 134, 44–64.
  27. Kobayashi, L.; Zhang, X.C.; Collins, S.A.; Karim, N.; Merck, D.L. Exploratory Application of Augmented Reality/Mixed Reality Devices for Acute Care Procedure Training. West. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 19, 158–164.
  28. Mahroo, A.; Greci, L.; Sacco, M. HoloHome: An Augmented Reality Framework to Manage the Smart Home. In Proceedings of the Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics, Santa Maria al Bagno, Italy, 24–27 June 2019; De Paolis, L.T., Bourdot, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 137–145.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback