Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Blocks: Collaborative and Persistent Augmented Reality Experiences

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Blocks, a mobile AR app, demonstrates that non-experts can co-create persistent block structures across every space-time collaboration mode, and the studies show colocated synchronous building is the most enjoyable while location-free…

desk verdict Solid system and a careful lab study, but the headline field-study claim about location-independence driving activity is confounded by day and site and needs to be re-analyzed or substantially softened. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02409 v2 pith:WT3QGAIK submitted 2019-08-07 cs.HC

Anhong Guo , Ilter Canberk , Hannah Murphy , Andrés Monroy-Hernández , Rajan Vaish This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords augmentedrealitycollaborativeARpersistencemobilecontentcreationsynchronousandasynchronouscollaborationfielddeploymentlocation-based
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that collaborative creation of persistent augmented-reality content is not reserved for experts: Blocks lets anyone place colored cubes, leaves those cubes in place for others to find and edit, and works whether collaborators are together or apart and whether they build at the same time or different times. It matters because today's AR is mostly content consumption, and a persistent, user-created AR world would change how people share information in physical spaces. The empirical core is a 24-person lab study plus a 68-person field deployment and a 70-person extended deployment. The paper reports that participants enjoy colocated synchronous collaboration most, but are most active when structures are not bound to a particular location, and reads this as evidence for designing colocated, synchronous, location-independent AR experiences.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is Blocks' persistence architecture: a cloud database stores every block's position, size, color, and anonymous owner, so structures survive across app sessions and device changes. Image markers anchor location-dependent structures to a fixed spot and re-calibrate them on re-detection, while world tracking places blocks on real surfaces. Live awareness comes from shared cursors, recent-change highlighting, and an online-user counter, and the split between a personal sandbox and a shared OurWorld lets newcomers practice before contributing.

What would settle it

Re-run the field study as a within-site crossover that alternates location-dependent and location-independent conditions on the same day and same poster, then compare sessions per user and repeat-use rates; if the advantage of location independence disappears or tracks the day or site, the paper's central design recommendation is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single mobile AR tool can cover all four combinations of space and time, and that the two dimensions pull in different directions. In the lab, colocated synchronous collaboration ranked highest for fun, engagement, and awareness of a partner's actions, while asynchronous collaboration produced more blocks and more color variety. In the field, the location-independent condition drew more sessions per user and more repeat use, while the location-dependent condition drew more blocks per session. The paper concludes that the most promising design configuration combines the enjoyment of colocated synchronous work with the participation boost of location-independent access.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that location-independent structures increase engagement rests on field data in which the location-dependent and location-independent conditions ran on different days and in different physical sites, so day, site, or novelty effects could account for the higher session counts instead of the AR location design.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers who want both positive experience and high participation should consider a configuration that is location-independent at the level of access while keeping synchronous colocated creation as the core activity.
  • Persistent structures reliably bring users back: repeat-use rates reached 74 percent in the field study and 67 percent in the extended deployment.
  • Open-ended creation goals increase output, with pairs adding roughly 465 blocks in open-ended sessions versus 260 for robots and 306 for tables.
  • Asynchronous collaboration changes how people build: it yields more blocks and more colors, less deletion of a partner's work, and more planning time, suggesting it suits independent creative contributions rather than tight coordination.
  • Persistent public editing creates governance needs, since participants asked future creators not to alter their work and noted that space can become cluttered over time, motivating permissions, moderation, and expiry controls.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the field comparison ran location-dependent and location-independent conditions on different days and at different sites, a cleaner test would hold the site and day constant while toggling location dependence; this would tell whether the session-count advantage is really about AR location design and not about calendar or novelty effects.
  • If the patterns generalize, persistent collaborative AR could follow the same arc as Web 2.0, shifting end users from viewers of expert-made content to producers of an embedded digital layer over the physical world, with all the ownership, moderation, and curation problems that shift will bring.
  • The contrast between the lab's enjoyment result and the field's participation result suggests there may be two distinct audiences or two distinct motivational routes, one driven by live social presence and one by flexible access; a useful next study would measure both dimensions within the same participants over time.
  • The voxel grammar is simple enough that Blocks' persistence model could transfer to other persistent AR applications such as collaborative annotations, accessible signage, or navigation aids, where the shared object is not a sculpture but a community-maintained layer of information.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. Blocks is a mobile AR application for collaborative creation of persistent block-based structures, presented as the first tool to cover all combinations of synchronous/asynchronous collaboration with colocated/remote users, and with AR structures that are either tied to a physical location or available anywhere. The paper reports a 24-participant lab study comparing colocated-sync, remote-sync, and async creation; a 68-participant three-day field study comparing location-dependent and location-independent deployments; and a 70-participant five-day extended deployment. The main reported findings are that participants prefer synchronous colocated collaboration and that participation, measured by session counts, is higher when structures are location-independent. The paper contributes design implications centered on location-independent, colocated synchronous experiences.

Significance. The contribution is an early, systematic empirical exploration of two collaborative dimensions in a single persistent AR creation tool. The lab study is methodologically stronger than typical system papers: within-subject counterbalanced conditions, ANOVA and Friedman tests with Holm-Bonferroni corrections, and server-log plus survey measures. The field and extended deployments provide realistic usage data and rich qualitative observations. If the field comparison were causally identified, the location-independence engagement claim would be an important design guideline. As it stands, the system and the lab preference results are likely to interest the IMWUT/UbiComp community, but the headline activity claim requires additional support or a tempered framing.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.1, §7.1, Table 2, Fig. 14] The claim that location-independent scenarios produce more activity is not supported by a controlled or statistically modeled comparison. The location-dependent condition ran on Day 1 (lobby) and Day 3 morning (cafeteria), while the location-independent condition ran on Day 2 (lobby) and Day 3 afternoon (cafeteria). Session counts (91 vs. 131) are thus entangled with calendar day, physical site, and time of day; novelty, foot traffic, or diurnal patterns could explain the difference. No inferential test is reported for these counts, in contrast to the lab study. This is load-bearing because §9.1 and §11 generalize to a recommendation to prefer location-independent experiences for participation. The paper should at minimum analyze the Day 3 within-site morning/afternoon split, model day and site as random effects, or substantially temper the causal wording; the Limitations section (§10) currently does not address this confound.
  2. [§7.1, Table 2] The activity finding is metric-dependent. In Table 2, location-dependent sessions have substantially more blocks per session (58 vs. 35) and similar total OurWorld blocks to location-independent (1,722 vs. 1,936); only the number of user sessions is higher. The abstract's phrase 'most active' therefore conflates session frequency with total contribution. The authors should report and test per-user and per-session productivity measures, and state explicitly which dimension of activity the design recommendation targets.
  3. [§8] The five-day extended deployment is presented as consistent with earlier findings, but it does not manipulate the location dimension; participants could experience structures both at the installation and anywhere. It therefore cannot provide independent evidence for the location-independence effect. This is not itself a flaw, but it should not be cited in support of the causal claim about location-independence increasing participation.
  4. [§9.1, §5.3.3, §7.1] The design recommendation for a location-independent, colocated synchronous experience is a conjunctive extrapolation that is not directly tested. The lab study varied the location of people across synchronous and asynchronous conditions but did not vary whether structures were location-dependent or independent; the field study varied structure persistence across locations but did not manipulate whether collaborators were colocated or remote. The paper should present the combined recommendation as an inference from two separate studies, not as an empirically validated combination.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.1] The sentence 'On Day 2, we deployed the location-independent scenario was deployed' contains a duplicated verb phrase; it should likely read 'On Day 2, we deployed the location-independent scenario, where...'.
  2. [Fig. 14, Fig. 15] Plotting cumulative sessions and average blocks against time of day for conditions that ran on different days may visually suggest a within-day comparison; adding day and site annotations would improve clarity.
  3. [§5.2.2] The post-hoc comparison for blocks added in the async condition versus the colocated-sync condition reports adjusted p = 0.139; the text should state clearly that this difference is not significant after the Holm-Bonferroni correction, since the current phrasing 'post-hoc analyses revealed' could be misread.
  4. [§2.2, Table 1] The phrase 'space and time' is used for two distinct dimensions: the location of the people and the location of the AR structures. Consider distinguishing these dimensions more explicitly in Table 1 and the surrounding text to avoid conceptual ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical user study whose claims are supported by external measurements, not by fitted parameters or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

This paper reports a system design and empirical evaluations (lab study, field study, and extended deployment) of an AR co-creation application. The central claims are behavioral: participants preferred colocated synchronous collaboration, and they were most active in the location-independent scenario. These claims are grounded in observed measurements such as Likert ratings, rankings, session counts, block counts, and server logs. None of the paper's contributions are derived from an analytic model, a fitted parameter, or a theorem. The design choices are informed by prior literature, but the outcome measures are external to the hypotheses and were not used to define the hypotheses. The only notable weakness is a validity concern in the field study: the location-dependent and location-independent conditions were entangled with day, physical site, and time of day, and the paper does not statistically model this confound. That is a methodological threat to causal inference, not a circularity. The paper also cites some prior work by its own authors (e.g., VizLens, Facade, Crowd Research), but these citations are contextual or methodological and are not load-bearing for the empirical conclusions. There is no equation in which an output equals an input by construction, no re-labeling of a fitted value as a prediction, and no self-citation chain that forces the result. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on standard HCI measurement assumptions: Likert scales treated as interval data, block counts as a proxy for complexity and participation, and the representativeness of tech-company employees as end users. These are domain assumptions acknowledged in the limitations. No fitted parameters or invented entities are present.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Seven-point Likert scales can be treated as equal-interval data and analyzed with parametric tests.
    Stated in a footnote to Section 5: 'We treated Likert scales with 7 points as approximating equal intervals and thus analyzed them using ANOVAs or T-tests.' This is a common but debatable assumption in HCI.
  • domain assumption The number of blocks added is a valid proxy for structural complexity and participation, analogous to word count in collaborative writing.
    Introduced in Section 5.1: 'We measured the number of blocks added as an indication of the complexity or scale of the structures, similar to the word count in collaborative writing.' The main participation and activity findings depend on this proxy.
  • domain assumption Findings from company employees (engineers, designers, PMs, technicians, financial analysts) generalize to a broader population of end users.
    The paper acknowledges in Section 10: 'our study participants were predominantly young employees of a tech company, and over-represented early technology adopters.' Yet the abstract's claim about 'people' assumes generalizability.
  • domain assumption Apple ARKit world tracking and image markers maintain persistent, accurate alignment of virtual structures across sessions and devices.
    The persistence feature relies on this technical assumption (Section 3.5). Tracking failures or marker re-identification errors would weaken the persistent collaboration experience, though the paper reports no quantitative tracking accuracy evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blocks: Collaborative and Persistent Augmented Reality Experiences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WT3QGAIK

@misc{pith2026190802409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blocks: Collaborative and Persistent Augmented Reality Experiences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WT3QGAIK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02409}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce Blocks, a mobile application that enables people to co-create AR structures that persist in the physical environment. Using Blocks, end users can collaborate synchronously or asynchronously, whether they are colocated or remote. Additionally, the AR structures can be tied to a physical location or can be accessed from anywhere. We evaluated how people used Blocks through a series of lab and field deployment studies with over 160 participants, and explored the interplay between two collaborative dimensions: space and time. We found that participants preferred creating structures synchronously with colocated collaborators. Additionally, they were most active when they created structures that were not restricted by time or place. Unlike most of today's AR experiences, which focus on content consumption, this work outlines new design opportunities for persistent and collaborative AR experiences that empower anyone to collaborate and create AR content.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02409 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. AR structures showing the diversity of creations people built collaboratively using Blocks. Here we highlight a few [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of three people co-creating a table in a colocated setup using Blocks (left), and a screenshot showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A user using Blocks to create a layer of green lawn (left), and two users collaboratively creating a table (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experimental setup for the lab study. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Significant main effect of Session Goal (tables, robots, open-ended structures) on the number of blocks added was observed. Colocated Remote Async 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Collaboration Mode Number of blocks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Significant main effect of Collaboration Mode (colocated-sync, remote-sync, async) on the ranking about the ease to be aware of their partners’ actions was observed (1 being the best rank). [36], we calculated a measure of participation balance as one minus the varianc…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Significant main effect of Collaboration Mode (colocated-sync, remote-sync, async) on the number of colors used was observed. 6.04 6.00 5.92 5.88 5.83 5.83 5.71 5.50 5.33 5.25 5.04 4.00 Likert Scale Ratings Pick color Press and hold Delete Choose color Stay persistent …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Significant main effect of Collaboration Mode (colocated-sync, remote-sync, async) on the ranking about being engaged was observed (1 being the best rank). Participants’ feedback indeed skewed positive and were supported by open-ended comments. We believe the feedback…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Experimental setup for the field study. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Cumulative number of user sessions throughout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Apple Inc. 2019. ARKit. https://developer.apple.com/arkit/

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Archery Inc. 2018. Arrow - Augmented Reality. https://itunes.apple.com/app/arrow-ar-texts-emojis/id1296755150

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Arthur Aron, Elaine N Aron, and Danny Smollan. 1992. Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of personality and social psychology 63, 4 (1992), 596

    1992

  4. [4]

    Yochai Benkler. 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom . Yale University Press

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Po Bhattacharyya, Radha Nath, Yein Jo, Ketki Jadhav, and Jessica Hammer. 2019. Brick: Toward A Model for Designing Synchronous Colocated Augmented Reality Games. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 323, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300553

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Mark Billinghurst, Adrian Clark, and Gun Lee. 2015. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, 2-3 (March 2015), 73–272. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000049

    doi:10.1561/1100000049 2015

  7. [7]

    Mark Billinghurst, Ivan Poupyrev, Hirokazu Kato, and Richard May. 2000. Mixing Realities in Shared Space: An Augmented Reality Interface for Collaborative Computing.. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (III) . Citeseer, 1641–1644

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Tobias Brockmann, Nina Krüger, Stefan Stieglitz, and Immo Bohlsen. 2013. A Framework for Collaborative Augmented Reality Applications. (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Su Cai, Xu Wang, and Feng-Kuang Chiang. 2014. A case study of Augmented Reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014), 31–40

    2014

  2. [10]

    Areti Damala, Pierre Cubaud, Anne Bationo, Pascal Houlier, and Isabelle Marchal. 2008. Bridging the gap between the digital and the physical: design and evaluation of a mobile augmented reality guide for the museum visit. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on D...

    2008

  3. [11]

    Experiments with Google. 2018. Garden Friends. https://experiments.withgoogle.com/garden-friends Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol., Vol. 3, No. 3, Article 83. Publication date: September 2019. Blocks: Collaborative and Persistent Augmented Reality Experienc...

    2018

  4. [12]

    Cole Gleason, Anhong Guo, Gierad Laput, Kris Kitani, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2016. VizMap: Accessible Visual Information Through Crowdsourced Map Reconstruction. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’16). ACM, ...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Google. 2019. Google Docs. https://www.google.com/docs/about/

    2019

  6. [14]

    Google Developers. 2019. ARCore. https://developers.google.com/ar/

    2019

  7. [15]

    Greg Guest, Kathleen M MacQueen, and Emily E Namey. 2011. Applied thematic analysis. sage

    2011

  8. [17]

    Hudson, Jennifer Mankoff, and Jeffrey P

    Anhong Guo, Jeeeun Kim, Xiang ‘Anthony’ Chen, Tom Yeh, Scott E. Hudson, Jennifer Mankoff, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2017. Facade: Auto-generating Tactile Interfaces to Appliances. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). ACM, New ...

    2017

  9. [18]

    Taejin Ha, Woontack Woo, Youngho Lee, Junhun Lee, Jeha Ryu, Hankyun Choi, and Kwanheng Lee. 2010. ARtalet: tangible user interface based immersive augmented reality authoring tool for Digilog book. In Ubiquitous Virtual Reality (ISUVR), 2010 International Symposium on. IEEE, 40–43

    2010

  10. [19]

    Anders Henrysson, Mark Billinghurst, and Mark Ollila. 2005. Face to face collaborative AR on mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE/ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality . IEEE Computer Society, 80–89

    2005

  11. [20]

    Inter IKEA Systems. 2017. IKEA Place. https://highlights.ikea.com/2017/ikea-place/

    2017

  12. [21]

    Henry Jenkins. 2006. Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide . NYU press

    2006

  13. [22]

    Kangsoo Kim, Mark Billinghurst, Gerd Bruder, Henry Been-Lirn Duh, and Gregory F Welch. 2018. Revisiting Trends in Augmented Reality Research: A Review of the 2nd Decade of ISMAR (2008–2017). IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 11 (2018), 2947–2962

    2018

  14. [23]

    Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, Mark Billinghurst, Sohan E Hayes, Anoop Gupta, Yuki Sannohe, and Hirokazu Kato. 2002. Communication behaviors of co-located users in collaborative AR interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality . IEEE Computer ...

    2002

  15. [24]

    Vojtěch Krs, Ersin Yumer, Nathan Carr, Bedrich Benes, and Radomír Měch. 2017. Skippy: Single View 3D Curve Interactive Modeling. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 4, Article 128 (July 2017), 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3072959.3073603

    2017

  16. [25]

    Lasecki, Kyle I

    Walter S. Lasecki, Kyle I. Murray, Samuel White, Robert C. Miller, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2011. Real-time Crowd Control of Existing Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’11) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 23–32....

    2011

  17. [26]

    Bibb Latané, Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins. 1979. Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of personality and social psychology 37, 6 (1979), 822

    1979

  18. [27]

    Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Vol. 521423740. Cambridge university press Cambridge

    1991

  19. [28]

    Lee, Gerard J

    Gun A. Lee, Gerard J. Kim, and Mark Billinghurst. 2005. Immersive Authoring: What You eXperience Is What You Get (WYXIWYG). Commun. ACM 48, 7 (July 2005), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/1070838.1070840

    2005

  20. [29]

    Lee, Claudia Nelles, Mark Billinghurst, and Gerard Jounghyun Kim

    Gun A. Lee, Claudia Nelles, Mark Billinghurst, and Gerard Jounghyun Kim. 2004. Immersive Authoring of Tangible Augmented Reality Applications. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR ’04) . IEEE Computer Society, Washing...

    2004 doi

  21. [30]

    David Lindlbauer and Andy D. Wilson. 2018. Remixed Reality: Manipulating Space and Time in Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 129, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173...

    2018

  22. [31]

    Mark Mabrito. 2006. A study of synchronous versus asynchronous collaboration in an online business writing class. The American Journal of Distance Education 20, 2 (2006), 93–107

    2006

  23. [32]

    Microsoft. 2018. Microsoft Maquette. https://www.maquette.ms

    2018

  24. [33]

    Microsoft. 2019. Minecraft. https://minecraft.net/

    2019

  25. [34]

    Stephan Müller, Mubbasir Kapadia, Seth Frey, S Klinger, Richard P Mann, Barbara Solenthaler, Robert W Sumner, and Markus Gross

  26. [35]

    Niantic, Inc. 2016. Pokémon Go. https://www.pokemongo.com/

    2016

  27. [36]

    Olson, Dakuo Wang, Gary M

    Judith S. Olson, Dakuo Wang, Gary M. Olson, and Jingwen Zhang. 2017. How People Write Together Now: Beginning the Investigation with Advanced Undergraduates in a Project Course. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 24, 1, Article 4 (March 2017), 40 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3038919

    2017 doi

  28. [37]

    Davidson, Sameh Khamis, Mingsong Dou, Vladimir Tankovich, Charles Loop, Qin Cai, Philip A

    Sergio Orts-Escolano, Christoph Rhemann, Sean Fanello, Wayne Chang, Adarsh Kowdle, Yury Degtyarev, David Kim, Philip L. Davidson, Sameh Khamis, Mingsong Dou, Vladimir Tankovich, Charles Loop, Qin Cai, Philip A. Chou, Sarah Mennicken, Julien Valentin, Vivek Proc. ACM Interact. ...

    2019

  29. [38]

    Ye Pan, David Sinclair, and Kenny Mitchell. 2018. Empowerment and embodiment for collaborative mixed reality systems. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 29, 3-4 (2018), e1838

    2018

  30. [39]

    Rémi Paucher and Matthew Turk. 2010. Location-based augmented reality on mobile phones. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on . IEEE, 9–16

    2010

  31. [40]

    Niranjini Rajagopal, John Miller, Krishna Kumar Reghu Kumar, Anh Luong, and Anthony Rowe. 2018. Welcome to My World: Demystifying Multi-user AR with the Cloud: Demo Abstract. InProceedings of the 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networ...

    2018

  32. [41]

    Gerhard Reitmayr and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2003. Location Based Applications for Mobile Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the Fourth Australasian User Interface Conference on User Interfaces 2003 - Volume 18 (AUIC ’03) . Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Austra...

    2003

  33. [42]

    Mitchel Resnick and Brian Silverman. 2005. Some Reflections on Designing Construction Kits for Kids. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’05) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1145/1109540.1109556

    2005

  34. [43]

    Scott D Roth. 1982. Ray casting for modeling solids. Computer graphics and image processing 18, 2 (1982), 109–144

    1982

  35. [44]

    Maria Roussos, Andrew Johnson, Thomas Moher, Jason Leigh, Christina Vasilakis, and Craig Barnes. 1999. Learning and building together in an immersive virtual world. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 8, 3 (1999), 247–263

    1999

  36. [45]

    Snap, Inc. 2019. Snapchat. https://whatis.snapchat.com/

    2019

  37. [46]

    Misha Sra, Aske Mottelson, and Pattie Maes. 2018. Your Place and Mine: Designing a Shared VR Experience for Remotely Located Users. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’18) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3196709.3196788

    2018

  38. [47]

    Thad Starner, Steve Mann, Bradley Rhodes, Jeffrey Levine, Jennifer Healey, Dana Kirsch, Rosalind W Picard, and Alex Pentland. 1997. Augmented reality through wearable computing. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 6, 4 (1997), 386–398

    1997

  39. [48]

    Ivan D Steiner. 2007. Group process and productivity (social psychological monograph). (2007)

    2007

  40. [49]

    The LEGO Group. 2019. LEGO. https://www.lego.com/

    2019

  41. [50]

    Kathleen Tuite, Adam M Smith, and Expressive Intelligence Studio. 2012. Emergent remix culture in an anonymous collaborative art system. In Proceedings of the 8th AAAI Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference (Toronto, Canada, 2012) . 16–23

    2012

  42. [51]

    Gaikwad, Geza Kovacs, Andreas Veit, Ranjay Krishna, Imanol Arrieta Ibarra, Camelia Simoiu, Michael Wilber, Serge Belongie, Sharad Goel, James Davis, and Michael S

    Rajan Vaish, Snehalkumar (Neil) S. Gaikwad, Geza Kovacs, Andreas Veit, Ranjay Krishna, Imanol Arrieta Ibarra, Camelia Simoiu, Michael Wilber, Serge Belongie, Sharad Goel, James Davis, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2017. Crowd Research: Open and Scalable University Laboratories. In...

    2017

  43. [52]

    Jia Wang, Owen Leach, and Robert W Lindeman. 2013. DIY World Builder: an immersive level-editing system. In 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), 2013 IEEE Symposium on . IEEE, 195–196

    2013

  44. [53]

    Xu Wang, Miaomiao Wen, and Carolyn Rose. 2017. Contrasting explicit and implicit support for transactive exchange in team oriented project based learning. In International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL ’17) . Philadelphia, PA: International Soci...

    2017

  45. [54]

    wiARframe, Inc. 2018. wiARframe. https://www.wiarframe.com

    2018

  46. [55]

    Haijun Xia, Sebastian Herscher, Ken Perlin, and Daniel Wigdor. 2018. Spacetime: Enabling Fluid Individual and Collaborative Editing in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’18) . ACM, New York, NY, USA...

    2018

  47. [56]

    Zappar Ltd. 2019. ZapWorks. https://zap.works/

    2019

  48. [57]

    Feng Zhou, Henry Been-Lirn Duh, and Mark Billinghurst. 2008. Trends in augmented reality tracking, interaction and display: A review of ten years of ISMAR. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality . IEEE Computer Society, 193–20...

    2008

  49. [2015]

    In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games

    Statistical analysis of player behavior in Minecraft. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. Society for the Advancement of the Science of Digital Games

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.