You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Applied Sciences
  • Review
  • Open Access

30 September 2022

Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the Last Decade of Applications

,
,
,
and
1
Department of Automotive and Transport Engineering, Transilvania University of Brasov, 500036 Brasov, Romania
2
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Ovidius University of Constanta, 900527 Constanta, Romania
3
Department of Business Administration, Ovidius University of Constanta, 900470 Constanta, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Technologies in Digitizing Cultural Heritage

Abstract

Augmented reality is a mature technology that uses the real world as a substrate and extends it by overlaying computer-generated information. It has been applied to several domains. In particular, the technology was proven to be useful for the management and preservation of Cultural Heritage. This study provides an overview of the last decade of the use of augmented reality in cultural heritage through a detailed review of the scientific papers in the field. We analyzed the applications published on Scopus and Clarivate Web of Science databases over a period of 9 years (2012–2021). Bibliometric data consisted of 1201 documents, and their analysis was performed using various tools, including ScientoPy, VOS Viewer, and Microsoft Excel. The results revealed eight trending topics of applying augmented reality technology to cultural heritage: 3D reconstruction of cultural artifacts, digital heritage, virtual museums, user experience, education, tourism, intangible cultural heritage, and gamification. Each topic is discussed in detail in the article sections, providing insight into existing applications and research trends for each application field.

1. Introduction

Augmented reality (AR) is one of the most up-to-date and advanced areas of technology. The field of AR application began in the 1990s [1] and has continuously increased in importance since then, along with technological advances and the development of information and communication technologies (ICTs). While virtual reality (VR) refers to creating a digital world that reproduces an environment that already exists in the reality, AR provides a framework for adding information to the real-world environment. AR technology allows users to perceive the world in an enhanced way; it improves the users’ experience by overlaying computer-generated information, including graphics, sounds, and sometimes touch feedback, on the real environment [2]. Thus, new metaphors of interaction with the physical world and synthetic information about the environment need to be invented, tested, and applied.
AR has been applied in various fields, from medicine to education, automotive industry, healthcare, or tourism [3]. In particular, it was proven to be useful for the management and preservation of cultural heritage (CH). There are some main purposes for which AR is used in CH: improving visitor experience, reconstruction, and exploration [4], as well as conservation and preservation [5] and bringing to life past events [6]. The technology that is most often applied in all these cases is digitization. It is used as a complementary method to preserve CH assets and to enhance traditional conservation procedures [7].
Once digitized, cultural heritage is ready to be accessed by all beneficiaries, both scientists and non-scientists. Starting with non-scientists, the large public is eager to consume this information available in digital form. In order to maximize this stream from cultural heritage towards the ordinary consumer, it is necessary to maximize the users’ absorption of heritage knowledge through such a visualization. This means that visualizations have to be adaptable, interactive, and user-oriented. On the other hand, we strongly consider scientists that deeply understand the valuable information they obtain using multi-level digitization techniques. They are striving to record everything about the artifacts: materials they are made of, weather conditions, historical period, relations between artifacts, functionalities, using procedures, etc. [8]. All these metadata must be recorded in order to be readily used or for the technology that will be available in the future [9]. For now, this information could be augmented as volume on the social network bases and using deep learning techniques for automated input [10]; validated through ontologies [11]; and multimodally visualized using VR or better AR technologies that involve visual display, gesture detection, force-feedback, and audio rendering. We consider that interactively touching the past through digital artifacts, while listening its narrative and observing its reaction to user actions, is one of the ultimate forms of cultural immersion that can be offered to the user.
On another hand, digitization is a chance of survival for the world cultural heritage under a double threat, that of natural cataclysms and that induced by direct human criminal actions. An ideal digitization technique will allow us to perfectly replicate a digitized artifact. However, we are far from this ability. In our days, the digitization results are largely visualized using different technologies, such as VR and AR, and are manipulated by the user in supervised setups using gesture-based, touch or touchless implemented metaphors. Using the early stage of 3D printing technology, scaled mockups of digitized artifacts are currently available to the large public for free and direct manipulation, without the fear of destruction and offering a personalized individual experience and knowledge on what the artifact was about or used for and how it was used [12].
Various use cases for AR/VR in the context of digital heritage are reviewed in the following. With applications in social media-based recommendations, psychiatric art therapy, theater and artistic representations, and cultural heritage dissemination AR/VR-based tools have become parts of our everyday life and are here to stay for the next decade.
Previous reviews studied the application of AR technology in CH from several viewpoints. In [13], important aspects related to VR/AR/MR technology and relevant technical requirements needed to develop CH applications are listed. The tracking, display, and interface aspects of AR applications are outlined. In [14], how AR is used in the field of history education and which AR applications might be acceptable for this field are examined. The content analysis method was used to analyze mobile AR applications in the field of CH [15]. Recently, [11] presented a survey of current ontologies and data models for AR urban environment applications in the CH field. These reviews are mainly focused on technologies and methods.
Bibliometric analyses have often been used lately to guide the future direction of research in various fields [16,17,18]. An important goal of bibliometric analysis is to generate a comprehensive overview of trends within a research domain and to examine the performance of countries, institutions, and researchers in terms of dissemination and publication. In [19], a bibliometric analysis carried out in 2016 and 2017 in the field of digital heritage is presented. The study identified that, most often, keywords are related to the technology used to develop digital heritage applications. Recently, a bibliometric analysis that outlines the use of AR for the dissemination of architectural heritage was presented in [7]. In [20], the current issues related to digital museum are overviewed using bibliometric analysis, and the relevant fields of research identified are digital humanities and VR and AR technologies. The publication trends between 2016 and 2021 in using digitization technology for CH applications are presented in [7]. This bibliometric analysis outlined that CH is increasingly adopting digitization.
AR is a dynamic research field, and it is necessary to underline the state of the research and to provide the latest trends which will allow the development of future studies. The AR tools facilitate access to cultural heritage in an interactive and engaging way [21]. The present paper aims to carry out a conclusive study on the efforts made in the last ten years for the development of AR applications used for the preservation and promotion of CH. We analyze how AR is involved in cultural heritage applications by conducting bibliometric research regarding the documents published on AR applications in CH in the last ten years. We review the relevant literature in order to investigate the following research questions:
Q1. What are the trends in using AR for cultural heritage applications?
Q2. What is the structure of the last decade of literature?
Q3. What are the main research results?
Our review is structured as follows: First, we provide insight into the research methodology we adopted in our endeavor, pointing out the document search and selection criteria, software and data extraction process, and the analysis of the results and trends. Section 3 is the core of our review, focusing on the top trending applications of AR in cultural heritage. The section uses eight of the most used keywords/research topics identified in the scientific production of the field as heading pillars, namely 3D reconstruction, digital heritage, virtual museum, user experience, education, tourism, gamification, and intangible cultural heritage. The paper ends with our detailed conclusions where we share with the reader our opinion with respect to what the future of cultural heritage dissemination technology looks like.

2. Research Method

The data used for the present study were retrieved from Scopus and Clarivate Web of Science (WoS). We selected these databases because they contain extensive peer-reviewed publications and provide effective tools for downloading data. The search was run in April 2022, using the search terms “(Augmented OR Mixed) Reality AND (Cultur* AND Heritage)”. We selected the search query that ensures the relevancy of the results to the application of AR to cultural heritage. The period selected to accomplish the goal of this research was between 2012 and 2021. A filter search was used to reduce the number of articles to only those published in English, because in most cases, the results of this field of interest are available generally in English [22] (see Figure 1). A list of the selected documents and their key information was exported into the .csv (comma-separated value) format. Based on the chosen search terms, we obtained 835 documents from WoS and 883 documents from Scopus.
Figure 1. The methodology used in this study.
In the next step, the ScientoPy scientometric tool [23] was used for data reconciliation [24]. Both datasets were merged, and all duplicate documents were removed using ScientoPy (see Figure 2). Hence, through pre-processing, 504 documents were removed from Scopus and 13 from WoS. In addition, ScientoPy was used to simplify authors’ names, accents, and abbreviations. The result contains 1201 unique entities from both datasets stored in .csv format and was used as input for further analysis of bibliographic data. We also used the Excel 360 software tool in the data analysis process.
Figure 2. The pre-processing data from Scopus and WoS databases.
ScientoPy can categorize most prominent trends using the following topic growth indicators: average growth rate (AGR), average documents per year (ADY), percentage of documents in last years (PDLY), h-index of each topic [23]. In Table 1 we present the main topics of applying augmented reality to culture heritage. The following areas were the most prominent trends identified: (a) the 3D reconstruction of cultural artifacts; (b) digital heritage; (c) virtual museums; (d) user experience; (e) education; (f) tourism; (g) intangible cultural heritage; (h) gamification.
Table 1. Growth indicators of selected trend topics.
Figure 3 shows the evolution of the current trending topics in the field of AR applied in CH. This plot is based on a query that returns the most popular topics according to the cumulative number of documents versus the year of publication. The trend visualization includes all documents published in the last decade. A logarithmic scale is used on the Y-axis to facilitate visualization. This evolution plot provides information regarding the evolution of the trend for the past 10 years. It can be seen that topmost popular topics followed a similar pattern. The plot shows that most of the documents follow a consistent pattern of growth. In the right diagram in Figure 3, the AGR for each trending topic between 2020 and 2021 is represented on the Y-axis, and the PDLY is represented on the X-axis. The trending topic with the highest number of documents is “3D reconstruction” and the topic with the second highest relative growth is “digital heritage”.
Figure 3. Top trending topics generated from the author keywords.
Considering the type of documents, there are 419 journal articles, 746 conferences and proceedings papers, 16 book chapters, and 20 reviews. Figure 4 shows the VOS software [25] network visualization of documents for each country, colored according to the number of publications in that country. It indicates that as of December 2021, the highest numbers of related articles were published by Italy, followed by Greece, Spain, China, and United Kingdom. This finding is a good indicator of which countries currently provide research and development in this area. In addition, it may help researchers assess their country’s impact on the field.
Figure 4. The 10 most active countries in the field of AR in cultural heritage.
Figure 5a contains the first 10 countries that have at least 5 publications. The rank indicates the country’s position according to the number of publications. The number of articles in each country is a more appropriate measure than the country’s popularity in the topic. The number of citations per institution (Figure 5b) shows a relatively similar result to the previous figure. The highest numbers of citations were observed in three countries: Italy (2344), the United Kingdom (909), and Spain (608).
Figure 5. The 10 most active countries by number of documents (a) and citations (b).

4. Conclusions

The main goal of this study was to identify and overview the most significant topics from the last decade in the field of augmented reality and cultural heritage. We conducted an advanced search on the Scopus and WOS databases and performed a scientometric analysis on a large article dataset (n = 1201) using ScinetoPy and VOS software. In summary, the findings showed that there is a growing interest in applications of AR in many CH contexts, from 3D reconstructions to intangible cultural heritage. The growing tendency for each topic was highlighted using trend analysis indicators AGR, ADY, and PDLY.
The 3D reconstruction of cultural heritage objects is a complex task. Over the last decade, several techniques for 3D reconstruction such as photogrammetry, laser scanning, lidar, and structural light were successfully used for many CH artifacts. While these techniques provide the raw data, other techniques derived from AI such as deep learning and ontology at the same time enrich and filter the information to be used by different types of users such as researchers, museographers, or tourists. In this regard, as in the Europeana platform mentioned, a cultural heritage cloud is prepared to be densely populated and largely disseminated all around the world [159].
AR is a very effective solution for showcasing 3D reconstructed artifacts. It can also be used to identify the most appropriate restoration approach to produce a realistic replica, which reduces costs and speeds up the restoration process. Aspects as data quality, available metadata, and multi-layered information related to the real artifacts are some essential aspects that have to be considered in order to ensure a self-sustainable AR-based CH application. For many CH artifacts, 3D reconstruction combined with AR produced practical solutions, but there are still many difficulties and unresolved issues. Future research in this area may focus on real-time digitization techniques that are more computationally efficient.
Digital heritage benefits extensively from AR technologies, whose recent widespread adoption makes them a major challenge to the way we understand and study the past. The development of AR has led to important research with the aim of addressing the needs of museums, archives, and heritage institutions. Developed applications demonstrate that AR can improve several tasks in digital heritage, namely visualization of reconstructed artifacts, documentation, and contextual understanding. In addition, using AR technology, digital heritage combines creative industries’ production with the digitization of CH artifacts in order to augment the visitor experience with animated digital archives, mixing real-world remnants with digital media. It is of real importance that tourists have the opportunity not only to touch the past through 3D printed replicas of pieces that transcend ancient history but also to experiment with and thus be culturally immersed in interactive setups involved in inter-human lost activities.
AR virtual museums enable a deeper level of involvement and connection between museums and their visitors. AR has been used to make the museum contents more interesting and attractive to the users. To create AR experiences, a variety of techniques are used in order to render a vast amount of information about artifacts, mainly using a mobile device. In this way, AR technologies have the potential to increase access to and interchanging of information that describes the CH artifacts in a dynamic way. At the same time, AR is beginning to be largely used for offering new audiences in museums through multi-dimensional environments that transpose visitors from physical to digital multimodal experiences. However, the usage of AR technologies is still constrained by a few issues, most of which are related to the complex technical skills needed to develop these applications.
Available AR technology’s potential has been proved in CH both from economic and social perspectives. While specific AR gadgets are triggering willingness to use, they are proved to be more suitable in indoor setups rather than outdoor ones. Mobile technology remains one of the most accessible and promising solutions for the user-oriented AR visualization of CH. In order to obtain an effective AR app from the user experience point of view, there are some design considerations that must be addressed. Usability, intuitive visualization of AR content, and the conception of UX interfaces must all be given importance. Enjoyment and usefulness are important aspects regardless of whether we consider the user’s freedom to interact through AR technology, where smart glasses are preferred because of the user’s free hands and gesture-based implemented metaphors, rather than interaction with mobile multi-touch displays. In addition, the development of an AR app for CH requires knowledge and understanding of cultural and historical aspects.
Education has been in the spotlight in the last decade, especially in recent years. Gaining students’ attention and maintaining it is particularly difficult in the context of heavy social media and computer or mobile device usage. Recent advances in technology must be exploited to add value to the educational process, and AR, VR, and MR are not exceptions. In cultural heritage-related education tools, AR plays an important role, allowing full immersion in 3D reconstructed historical settings and/or free interaction with virtual reconstructed artifacts. Gamification is combined with AR/VR, ensuring a collaborative and engaging experience, in which learning happens seamlessly. At the same time, through the addition of visual and auditory features to the digital collections, AR increases students’ access to CH resources and their understanding.
It is hard to find CH experiences outside a tourism-based experience. We cannot imagine holidays without heritage objectives of interest to visit, locally or abroad. AR applications can help tourism by enhancing the visitor’s experience and improving CH information perception. By adding 3D visuals to the existing information, AR-based tourism applications can also give tangible advantages by enhancing the value of existing CH attractions.
Nevertheless, technology has a long way to go until the tourists will select their cultural heritage objectives as “have to visit this one” points of interest on their holiday map, despite the fact that it is mature enough to increase the visual appeal of real artifacts augmented with digital ones and thus trigger strong emotional involvement of the user in a possibly multimodal (visual, audio, textual, intangible) experience. However, tourists are starting to transform from “simple” CH content consumers, using mobile accessible devices, to digital heritage contributors, by the means of social media platforms, sharing their CH-oriented experiences and augmenting them with their own stories and memories and thus pushing forward the common cultural memory. Of course, this trend comes with the challenge of filtering this huge amount of information, classifying it, relating it to the existing information, and finally deciding if the visitor’s input was useful to humanity’s memory.
Gamification is intensely exploited in electronic educational resources, especially in the context of online learning. Cultural heritage educational applications make no exception, especially since the AR tools used for developing such solutions allow seamless integration of game-like behavior. Be it a serious game approach to CH or a storytelling approach, application areas for CH education benefit greatly from gamification. User engagement and collaboration, which are crucial for the end results of any educational process, are promoted by incorporating game-related ideas into CH applications. AR and gamification may provide a viable tool to engage participants not only in tangible CH elements, such as artifacts, buildings, and historic sites, but also in intangible CH.
In our vision, ICH is somehow an ultimate form of CH expression because it subsumes artifacts, their functionalities, the processes in which they are used, and the purposes of their use. Even if we talk about traditions (oral and gestures), performing arts, social practices, rituals, knowledge, or practices focused on any kind of human activity (e.g., skills to produce traditional crafts), addressing ICH with AR technology combined with user action validation (possibly based on some kind of ontology) could believably transpose the “cultural immersion” experience.
Although the analysis of keywords from Scopus and WOS databases provides high quality and consistency of the presented results, the inclusion of other databases can provide a more thorough identification of trending topics in the fields of augmented reality and cultural heritage.

Author Contributions

R.G.B., F.G. and D.-M.P. performed the conceptualization; R.G.B., F.G., and E.B. conceived the methodology; D.-M.P., F.G. and N.P. performed the validation; F.G. performed the formal analysis; R.G.B., E.B., F.G., N.P. and D.-M.P. performed the investigation; F.G. identified the resources; R.G.B., E.B., F.G., N.P. and D.-M.P. performed the data curation; R.G.B., E.B., F.G., N.P. and D.-M.P., writing—original draft preparation; R.G.B., E.B., F.G., N.P. and D.-M.P., writing—review and editing; N.P. conceived the visualization; F.G. supervised the work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This research is the result of Transilvania University of Brasov and CeRVA Lab from Ovidius University of Constanta teams’ common effort.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rauschnabel, P.A.; Felix, R.; Hinsch, C.; Shahab, H.; Alt, F. What is XR? Towards a Framework for Augmented and Virtual Reality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 133, 107289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aggarwal, R.; Singhal, A. Augmented Reality and its effect on our life. In Proceedings of the 2019 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), Uttar Pradesh, India, 10–11 January 2019; pp. 510–515. [Google Scholar]
  3. Arena, F.; Collotta, M.; Pau, G.; Termine, F. An Overview of Augmented Reality. Computers 2022, 11, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Okanovic, V.; Ivkovic-Kihic, I.; Boskovic, D.; Mijatovic, B.; Prazina, I.; Skaljo, E.; Rizvic, S. Interaction in eXtended Reality Applications for Cultural Heritage. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Merchán, M.J.; Merchán, P.; Pérez, E. Good Practices in the Use of Augmented Reality for the Dissemination of Architectural Heritage of Rural Areas. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Boboc, R.G.; Duguleană, M.; Voinea, G.-D.; Postelnicu, C.-C.; Popovici, D.-M.; Carrozzino, M. Mobile Augmented Reality for Cultural Heritage: Following the Footsteps of Ovid among Different Locations in Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Salleh, S.Z.; Bushroa, A.R. Bibliometric and content analysis on publications in digitization technology implementation in cultural heritage for recent five years (2016–2021). Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2022, 25, e00225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cieslik, E. 3D Digitization in Cultural Heritage Institutions Guidebook; National Museum of Dentistry: Baltimore, MD, USA,, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  9. Poulopoulos, V.; Wallace, M. Digital Technologies and the Role of Data in Cultural Heritage: The Past, the Present, and the Future. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2022, 6, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lampropoulos, G.; Keramopoulos, E.; Diamantaras, K. Enhancing the functionality of augmented reality using deep learning, semantic web and knowledge graphs: A review. Vis. Inform. 2020, 4, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vlachos, A.; Perifanou, M.; Economides, A.A. A review of ontologies for augmented reality cultural heritage applications. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chatzigrigoriou, P.; Nikolakopoulou, V.; Vakkas, T.; Vosinakis, S.; Koutsabasis, P. Is architecture connected with intangible cultural heritage? Reflections from the digital documentation of local architecture and interactive application design for the case of marble, olive oil, and mastic heritage in three Aegean islands. Heritage 2021, 4, 664–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bekele, M.K.; Pierdicca, R.; Frontoni, E.; Malinverni, E.S.; Gain, J. A survey of augmented, virtual, and mixed reality for cultural heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2018, 11, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Challenor, J.; Ma, M. A Review of Augmented Reality Applications for History Education and Heritage Visualisation. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2019, 3, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sabri, F.N.M.; Khidzir, N.Z.; Ismail, A.R.; Mat, K.A. An exploratory study on mobile augmented reality (AR) application for heritage content. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 2016, 4, 489–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sgambati, S.; Gargiulo, C. The evolution of urban competitiveness studies over the past 30 years. A bibliometric analysis. Cities 2022, 128, 103811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Atlasi, R.; Ramezani, A.; Tabatabaei-Malazy, O.; Alatab, S.; Oveissi, V.; Larijani, B. Scientometric assessment of scientific documents published in 2020 on herbal medicines used for COVID-19. J. Herb. Med. 2022, 35, 100588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Munoz-Ausecha, C.; Ruiz-Rosero, J.; Ramirez-Gonzalez, G. RFID Applications and Security Review. Computation 2021, 9, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Münster, S. Digital heritage as a scholarly field—Topics, researchers, and perspectives from a bibliometric point of view. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2019, 12, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yulifar, L.; Widiaty, I.; Anggraini, D.N.; Nugraha, E.; Minggra, R.; Kurniaty, H.W. Digitalizing museums: A bibliometric study. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2021, 16, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
  21. van Ruymbeke, M.; Nofal, E.; Billen, R. 3D Digital Heritage and Historical Storytelling: Outcomes from the Interreg EMR Terra Mosana Project. In Culture and Computing; Rauterberg, M., Ed.; HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 13324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cisneros, L.; Ibanescu, M.; Keen, C.; Lobato-Calleros, O.; Niebla-Zatarain, J. Bibliometric Study of Family Business Succession Between 1939 and 2017: Mapping and Analyzing Authors’ Networks; Springer International Publishing: Budapest, Hungary, 2018; Volume 117, ISBN 0123456789. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ruiz-Rosero, J.; Ramirez-Gonzalez, G.; Viveros-Delgado, J. Software survey: ScientoPy, a scientometric tool for topics trend analysis in scientific publications. Scientometrics 2019, 121, 1165–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jarke, M.; Lenzerini, M.; Vassiliou, Y.; Vassiliadis, P. Fundamentals of Data Warehouses; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; ISBN 978-3-662-05153-5. [Google Scholar]
  25. VOSviewer—Visualizing Scientifc Landscapes. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/ (accessed on 8 July 2022).
  26. Cultural Heritage at Risk: United States. Available online: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/special-topics-art-history/arches-at-risk-cultural-heritage-education-series/xa0148fd6a60f2ff6:cultural-heritage-endangered-round-the-world/a/cultural-heritage-at-risk-united-states (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  27. Panou, C.; Ragia, L.; Dimelli, D.; Mania, K. Outdoors Mobile Augmented Reality Application Visualizing 3D Reconstructed Historical Monuments. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management (GISTAM 2018), Porto, Portugal, 17–19 March 2018; pp. 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Campi, M.; di Luggo, A.; Palomba, D.; Palomba, R. Digital surveys and 3D reconstructions for augmented accessibility of archaeological heritage. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019, 42, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Machidon, O.M.; Postelnicu, C.C.; Girbacia, F.S. 3D Reconstruction as a Service–Applications in Virtual Cultural Heritage. In Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics; De Paolis, L., Mongelli, A., Eds.; AVR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 9769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mongelli, M.; Chellini, G.; Migliori, S.; Perozziello, A.; Pierattini, S.; Puccini, M.; Cosma, A. Comparison and integration of techniques for the study and valorisation of the Corsini Throne in Corsini Gallery in Roma. ACTA IMEKO 2021, 10, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Noh, Z.; Sunar, M.S.; Pan, Z. A Review on Augmented Reality for Virtual Heritage System; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 50–61. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gomes, L.; Bellon, O.R.P.; Silva, L. 3D reconstruction methods for digital preservation of cultural heritage: A survey. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2014, 50, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Portalés, C.; Lerma, J.L.; Pérez, C. Photogrammetry and augmented reality for cultural heritage applications. Photogramm. Rec. 2009, 24, 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Putra, E.Y.; Wahyudi, A.K.; Dumingan, C. A proposed combination of photogrammetry, Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Headset for heritage visualization. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC), Mataram, Indonesia, 28–29 October 2016; pp. 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fritsch, D.; Klein, M. 3D preservation of buildings–Reconstructing the past. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2018, 77, 9153–9170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Barrile, V.; Bilotta, G.; Meduri, G.M.; De Carlo, D.; Nunnar, A. Laser scanner technology, ground-penetrating radar and augmented reality for the survey and recovery of artistic, archaeological and cultural heritage. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2017, 4, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Barrile, V.; Nunnari, A.; Ponterio, R.C. Laser scanner for the Architectural and Cultural Heritage and Applications for the Dissemination of the 3D Model. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 223, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Scianna, A.; Gaglio, G.F.; Grima, R.; La Guardia, M. The virtualization of CH for historical reconstruction: The AR fruition of the fountain of St. George square in Valletta (Malta). Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020, 44, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rodríguez-Gonzálvez, P.; Jimenez Fernandez-Palacios, B.; Muñoz-Nieto, Á.L.; Arias-Sanchez, P.; Gonzalez-Aguilera, D. Mobile LiDAR system: New possibilities for the documentation and dissemination of large cultural heritage sites. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Van Nguyen, S.; Le, S.T.; Tran, M.K.; Tran, H.M. Reconstruction of 3D digital heritage objects for VR and AR applications. J. Inf. Telecommun. 2021, 6, 254–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shih, N.J.; Diao, P.H.; Chen, Y. ARTS, an AR tourism system, for the integration of 3D scanning and smartphone AR in cultural heritage tourism and pedagogy. Sensors 2019, 19, 3725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Blanco-Pons, S.; Carrión-Ruiz, B.; Lerma, J.L.; Villaverde, V. Design and implementation of an augmented reality application for rock art visualization in Cova dels Cavalls (Spain). J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 39, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cruz, D.R.; Sevilla, J.S.; San Gabriel, J.W.D.; Cruz, A.J.P.D.; Caselis, E.J.S. Design and Development of Augmented Reality (AR) Mobile Application for Malolos’ Kameztizuhan (Malolos Heritage Town, Philippines). In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Games, Entertainment, Media Conference (GEM), Galway, Ireland, 15–17 August 2018; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pietroni, E. An augmented experiences in cultural heritage through mobile devices: “Matera tales of a city” project. In Proceedings of the 2012 18th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, Milan, Italy, 2–5 September 2012; pp. 117–124. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sebastiani, A. Digital Artifacts and Landscapes. Experimenting with Placemaking at the Impero Project. Heritage 2021, 4, 281–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Malik, U.S.; Tissen, L.N.; Vermeeren, A.P. 3D Reproductions of Cultural Heritage Artefacts: Evaluation of significance and experience. Stud. Digit. Herit. 2021, 5, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Girbacia, F.; Butnariu, S.; Orman, A.P.; Postelnicu, C.C. Virtual restoration of deteriorated religious heritage objects using augmented reality technologies. Eur. J. Sci. Theol. 2013, 9, 223–231. [Google Scholar]
  48. Boboc, R.G.; Gîrbacia, F.; Duguleană, M.; Tavčar, A. A handheld Augmented Reality to revive a demolished Reformed Church from Braşov. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference-Laval Virtual, Laval, France, 22–24 March 2017; Volume 2017, pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Parfenov, V.; Igoshin, S.; Masaylo, D.; Orlov, A.; Kuliashou, D. Use of 3D Laser Scanning and Additive Technologies for Reconstruction of Damaged and Destroyed Cultural Heritage Objects. Quantum Beam Sci. 2022, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Abate, A.F.; Barra, S.; Galeotafiore, G.; Díaz, C.; Aura, E.; Sánchez, M.; Vendrell, E. An Augmented Reality Mobile App for Museums: Virtual Restoration of a Plate of Glass. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Digital Heritage, EuroMed 2018, Nicosia, Cyprus, 29 October–3 November 2018; Volume 11196 LNCS, pp. 539–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Voinea, G.D.; Girbacia, F.; Postelnicu, C.C.; Marto, A. Exploring cultural heritage using augmented reality through Google’s Project Tango and ARCore. In VR Technologies in Cultural Heritage; Duguleană, M., Carrozzino, M., Gams, M., Tanea, I., Eds.; VRTCH 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 904, pp. 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. UNESCO. The Concept of Digital Heritage. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/themes/information-preservation/digital-heritage/concept-digital-heritage (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  53. Balduini, M.; Celino, I.; Dell’Aglio, D.; Della Valle, E.; Huang, Y.; Lee, T.; Kim, S.-H.; Tresp, V. BOTTARI: An augmented reality mobile application to deliver personalized and location-based recommendations by continuous analysis of social media streams. J. Web Semant. 2012, 16, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tan, K.L.; Lim, C.K. Digital heritage gamification: An augmented-virtual walkthrough to learn and explore historical places. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, Bikaner, India, 24–25 November 2017; Volume 1891, p. 020139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Carlton, N.R. Digital culture and art therapy. Arts Psychother. 2014, 41, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zimmer, A.; Wang, N.; Ibach, M.K.; Fehlmann, B.; Schicktanz, N.S.; Bentz, D.; Michael, T.; Papassotiropoulos, A.; de Quervain, D.J.F. Effectiveness of a smartphone-based, augmented reality exposure app to reduce fear of spiders in real-life: A randomized controlled trial. J. Anxiety Disord. 2021, 82, 102442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Eshuis, L.V.; van Gelderen, M.J.; van Zuiden, M.; Nijdam, M.J.; Vermetten, E.; Olff, M.; Bakker, A. Efficacy of immersive PTSD treatments: A systematic review of virtual and augmented reality exposure therapy and a meta-analysis of virtual reality exposure therapy. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2021, 143, 516–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hilty, D.M.; Randhawa, K.; Maheu, M.M.; McKean, A.J.; Pantera, R.; Mishkind, M.C.; Rizzo, A. A review of telepresence, virtual reality, and augmented reality applied to clinical care. J. Technol. Behav. Sci. 2020, 5, 178–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jacquemin, C.; Caye, V.; Luca, L.D.; Favre-Brun, A. Genius Loci: Digital heritage augmentation for immersive performance. Int. J. Arts Technol. 2014, 7, 223–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Comunità, M.; Gerino, A.; Lim, V.; Picinali, L. Design and Evaluation of a Web- and Mobile-Based Binaural Audio Platform for Cultural Heritage. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ch’ng, E.; Cai, S.; Leow, F.-T.; Zhang, T.E. Adoption and use of emerging cultural technologies in China’s museums. J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 37, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Patti, I. Standard Cataloguing of Augmented Objects for a Design Museum. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 1, 012054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rizvić, S.; Bošković, D.; Okanović, V.; Kihić, I.I.; Prazina, I.; Mijatović, B. Time Travel to the Past of Bosnia and Herzegovina through Virtual and Augmented Reality. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chang, Y.-S. Applying the ARCS Motivation Theory for the Assessment of AR Digital Media Design Learning Effectiveness. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Duguleană, M. eHERITAGE Project—Building a Cultural Heritage Excellence Center in the Eastern Europe. In Proceedings of the Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. EuroMed 2018, Nicosia, Cyprus, 29 October–3 November 2018; Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 11197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Laudazi, A.; Boccaccini, R. Augmented museums through mobile apps. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Horizon 2020 and Creative Europe vs. Digital Heritage: A European Projects Crossover, Flash News Co-Located with the International Conference Museums and the We 2014, Florence, Italy, 18 February 2014; Volume 1336, pp. 12–17, ISSN 1613-0073. [Google Scholar]
  67. Partarakis, N.; Zidianakis, E.; Antona, M.; Stephanidis, C. Art and Coffee in the Museum. In Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive Interactions; Streitz, N., Markopoulos, P., Eds.; DAPI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 9189, pp. 370–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Teneketzis, A. Exploring the emerging digital scene in Art History and museum practice. Esboços Histórias Contextos Globais 2020, 27, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Silva, M.; Teixeira, L. Developing an eXtended Reality platform for Immersive and Interactive Experiences for Cultural Heritage: Serralves Museum and Coa Archeologic Park. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), Recife, Brazil, 9–13 November 2020; pp. 300–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kallergis, G.; Christoulakis, M.; Diakakis, A.; Ioannidis, M.; Paterakis, I.; Manoudaki, N.; Liapi, M.; Oungrinis, K.A. Open City Museum: Unveiling the Cultural Heritage of Athens Through an-Augmented Reality Based-Time Leap. In Proceedings of the Culture and Computing, 8th International Conference, C&C 2020, Held as Part of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–24 July 2020; pp. 156–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nisi, V.; Cesario, V.; Nunes, N. Augmented reality museum’s gaming for digital natives: Haunted encounters in the Carvalhal’s palace. In Entertainment Computing and Serious Games; Van der Spek, E., Göbel, S., Do, E.L., Clua, E., Baalsrud Hauge, J., Eds.; ICEC-JCSG 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,, 2019; Volume 11863, pp. 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lee, J.; Lee, H.K.; Jeong, D.; Lee, J.; Kim, T.; Lee, J. Developing Museum Education Content: AR Blended Learning. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2021, 40, 473–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. May, P.M.; Schmidt, W.; Vlachopoulos, D. The Use of Augmented Reality (AR) In Museum Education: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 14th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, 2–4 March 2020; pp. 3179–3186. [Google Scholar]
  75. Partarakis, N.; Antona, M.; Zidianakis, E.; Stephanidis, C. Adaptation and Content Personalization in the Context of Multi User Museum Exhibits. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces for Cultural Heritage (AVI*CH 2016), Bari, Italy, 7–10 June 2016; pp. 5–10. [Google Scholar]
  76. Rahaman, H.; Champion, E.; Bekele, M. From photo to 3D to mixed reality: A complete workflow for cultural heritage visualisation and experience. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 13, e00102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hoang, T.N.; Cox, T.N. Alternating reality: An interweaving narrative of physical and virtual cultural exhibitions. Presence 2018, 26, 402–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Basaraba, N.; Conlan, O.; Edmond, J.; Arnds, P. Digital narrative conventions in heritage trail mobile apps. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimed. 2019, 25, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Baker, E.; Bakar, J.A.; Zulkifli, A. A Conceptual Model of Mobile Augmented Reality for Hearing Impaired Museum Visitors’ Engagement. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2020, 14, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Partarakis, N.; Zabulis, X.; Foukarakis, M.; Moutsaki, M.; Zidianakis, E.; Patakos, A.; Tasiopoulou, E. Supporting sign language narrations in the museum. Heritage 2022, 5, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Trunfio, M.; Campana, S.; Magnelli, A. Measuring the impact of functional and experiential mixed reality elements on a museum visit. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1990–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Münzer, M.G. How can augmented reality improve the user experience of digital products and engagement with cultural heritage outside the museum space? IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 949, 012040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Popovici, D.-M.; Iordache, D.; Comes, R.; Neamțu, C.G.D.; Băutu, E. Interactive Exploration of Virtual Heritage by Means of Natural Gestures. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T.H. Value of augmented reality at cultural heritage sites: A stakeholder approach. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Han, D.-I.D.; Tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T. Augmented Reality Smart Glasses (ARSG) visitor adoption in cultural tourism. Leis. Stud. 2019, 38, 618–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Litvak, E.; Kuflik, T. Enhancing cultural heritage outdoor experience with augmented-reality smart glasses. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2020, 24, 873–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mason, M. The MIT museum glassware prototype: Visitor experience exploration for designing smart glasses. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2016, 9, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Trunfio, M.; Campana, S. A visitors’ experience model for mixed reality in the museum. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1053–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Han, D.-I.; tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T. User experience model for augmented reality applications in urban heritage tourism. J. Herit. Tour. 2018, 13, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pedersen, I.; Gale, N.; Mirza-Babei, P.; Reid, S. More than meets the eye: The benefits of augmented reality and holographic displays for digital cultural heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2017, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Koo, S.; Kim, J.; Kim, C.; Cha, H.S. Development of an augmented reality tour guide for a cultural heritage site. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2019, 12, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Damala, A.; Ruthven, I.; Hornecker, E. The MUSETECH model: A comprehensive evaluation framework for museum technology. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2019, 12, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Damala, A.; Hornecker, E.; Van der Vaart, M.; van Dijk, D.; Ruthven, I. The Loupe: Tangible augmented reality for learning to look at Ancient Greek Art. Mediterr. Archaeol. Archaeom. 2016, 16, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zou, N.; Gong, Q.; Zhou, J.; Chen, P.; Kong, W.; Chai, C. Value-based model of user interaction design for virtual museum. CCF Trans. Pervasive Comput. Interact. 2021, 3, 112–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bozzelli, G.; Raia, A.; Ricciardi, S.; De Nino, M.; Barile, N.; Perrella, M.; Tramontano, M.; Pagano, P.; Palombini, A. An integrated VR/AR framework for user-centric interactive experience of cultural heritage: The ArkaeVision project. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 15, e00124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Duguleana, M.; Brodi, R.; Girbacia, F.; Postelnicu, C.; Machidon, O.; Carrozzino, M. Time-travelling with mobile augmented reality: A case study on the piazza dei miracoli. In Proceedings of the Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection: 6th International Conference, EuroMed 2016, Nicosia, Cyprus, 31 October–5 November 2016; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 902–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Besbes, B.; Collette, S.N.; Tamaazousti, M.; Bourgeois, S.; Gay-Bellile, V. An interactive augmented reality system: A prototype for industrial maintenance training applications. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), Bari, Italy, 5–8 November 2012; pp. 269–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Liu, E.; Liu, C.; Yang, Y.; Guo, S.; Cai, S. Design and Implementation of an Augmented Reality Application with an English Learning Lesson. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Wollongong, Australia, 4–7 December 2018; pp. 494–499. [Google Scholar]
  99. tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T.H.; Tom Dieck, D. Enhancing art gallery visitors’ learning experience using wearable augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes perspective. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 2014–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Novotný, M.; Lacko, J.; Samuelčík, M. Applications of multi-touch augmented reality system in education and presentation of virtual heritage. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 25, 231–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Joo-Nagata, J.; Abad, F.M.; Giner, J.G.B.; García-Peñalvo, F.J. Augmented reality and pedestrian navigation through its implementation in m-learning and e-learning: Evaluation of an educational program in Chile. Comput. Educ. 2017, 111, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Angelopoulou, A.; Economou, D.; Bouki, V.; Psarrou, A.; Jin, L.; Pritchard, C.; Kolyda, F. Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Wireless Middleware, Operating Systems, and Applications, London, UK, 22–24 June 2011; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Etxeberria, A.I.; Asensio, M.; Vicent, N.; Cuenca, J.M. Mobile devices: A tool for tourism and learning at archaeological sites. Int. J. Web Based Communities 2012, 8, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Mortara, M.; Catalano, C.E.; Bellotti, F.; Fiucci, G.; Houry-Panchetti, M.; Petridis, P. Learning cultural heritage by serious games. J. Cult. Herit. 2014, 15, 318–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Christopoulos, D.; Mavridis, P.; Andreadis, A.; Karigiannis, J.N. Using virtual environments to tell the story: The battle of Thermopylae. In Proceedings of the 2011 Third International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications, Athens, Greece, 4–6 May 2011; pp. 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ibañez-Etxeberria, A.; Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Fontal, O.; García-Ceballos, S. Virtual environments and augmented reality applied to heritage education. An evaluative study. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Fontal, O.; García-Ceballos, S.; Arias Martínez, B.; Arias González, V. Assessing the Quality of Heritage Education Programs: Construction and Calibration of the Q-Edutage Scale. Rev. Psicodidác. 2019, 24, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. González Vargas, J.C.; Fabregat, R.; Carrillo-Ramos, A.; Jové, T. Survey: Using Augmented Reality to Improve Learning Motivation in Cultural Heritage Studies. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tzima, S.; Styliaras, G.; Bassounas, A. Augmented reality applications in education: Teachers point of view. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Fenu, C.; Pittarello, F. Svevo tour: The design and the experimentation of an augmented reality application for engaging visitors of a literary museum. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2018, 114, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Camurri, A.; Volpe, G. The intersection of art and technology. IEEE MultiMedia 2016, 23, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Bekele, M.K.; Champion, E. A Comparison of Immersive Realities and Interaction Methods: Cultural Learning in Virtual Heritage. Front. Robot. AI 2019, 6, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Rome Reborn. Available online: https://www.romereborn.org/ (accessed on 21 June 2022).
  114. Frischer, B.; Abernathy, D.; Giuliani, F.C.; Scott, R.T.; Ziemssen, H. A New Digital Model of the Roman Forum. J. Rom. Archaeol. 2006, 163–182, Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Supplementary Series Number 61. ISSN 1963-4304. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/36574837/Frischer_et_al_Roman_Forum_2006_pdf (accessed on 22 June 2022).
  115. Gaitatzes, A.; Christopoulos, D.; Voulgari, A.; Roussou, M. Hellenic Cultural Heritage through Immersive Virtual Archaeology. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM’00), Ogaki, Japan, 3–6 October 2000; pp. 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  116. Vlahakis, V.; Ioannidis, M.; Karigiannis, J.; Tsotros, M.; Gounaris, M.; Stricker, D.; Gleue, T.; Daehne, P.; Almeida, L. Archeoguide: An augmented reality guide for archaeolog sites. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2002, 22, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Cruz-Neira, C.; Sandin, D.J.; DeFanti, T.A.; Kenyon, R.V.; Hart, J.C. The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Commun. ACM 1992, 35, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Marasco, A.; Buonincontri, P.; van Niekerk, M.; Orlowski, M.; Okumus, F. Exploring the role of next-generation virtual technologies in destination marketing. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Czernuszenko, M.; Pape, D.; Sandin, D.; DeFanti, T.; Dawe, G.L.; Brown, M.D. The ImmersaDesk and Infinity Wall projection-based virtual reality displays. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 1997, 31, 46–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Jung, T.H.; Lee, H.; Chung, N.; Tom Dieck, M.C. Cross-cultural differences in adopting mobile augmented reality at cultural heritage tourism sites. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1621–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Jung, K.; Nguyen, V.T.; Piscarac, D.; Yoo, S.C. Meet the virtual jeju dol harubang—The mixed VR/Ar application for cultural immersion in Korea’s main heritage. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Bec, A.; Moyle, B.; Timms, K.M.; Schaffer, V.; Skavronskaya, L.; Little, C. Management of immersive heritage tourism experiences: A conceptual model. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Garau, C. From Territory to Smartphone: Smart Fruition of Cultural Heritage for Dynamic Tourism Development. Plan. Pract. Res. 2014, 29, 238–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Garau, C.; Ilardi, E. The “Non-Places” Meet the “Places”: Virtual Tours on Smartphones for the Enhancement of Cultural Heritage. J. Urban Technol. 2014, 21, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Díaz-Fernández, M.C.; Pino-Mejías, M.Á. The impact of virtual reality technology on tourists’ experience: A textual data analysis. Soft. Comput. 2020, 24, 13879–13892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the MindTrek ’11: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, Tampere, Finland, 28–30 September 2011; pp. 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Landers, R.; Auer, E.; Collmus, A.; Armstrong, M. Gamification science, its history and future: Definitions and a research agenda. Simul. Gaming 2018, 49, 315–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Growthengineering. The Ultimate Definition of Gamification (with 6 Real World Examples). Available online: https://www.growthengineering.co.uk/definition-of-gamification/ (accessed on 22 June 2022).
  129. Xu, F.; Buhalis, D.; Weber, J. Serious games and the gamification of tourism. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 244–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ferdani, D.; Fanini, B.; Piccioli, M.C.; Carboni, F.; Vigliarolo, P. 3D reconstruction and validation of historical background for immersive VR applications and games: The case study of the Forum of Augustus in Rome. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 43, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Liarokapis, F.; Petridis, P.; Andrews, D.; De Freitas, S. Multimodal serious games technologies for cultural heritage. In Mixed Reality and Gamification for Cultural Heritage; Ioannides, M., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Papagiannakis, G., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 371–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Butnariu, S.; Duguleana, M.; Brondi, R.; Florin, G.; Postelnicu, C.; Carrozzino, M. An interactive haptic system for experiencing traditional archery. Acta Polytech. Hung. 2018, 15, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ceccacci, S.; Generosi, A.; Leopardi, A.; Mengoni, M.; Mandorli, A.F. The role of haptic feedback and gamification in virtual museum systems. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2021, 14, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Augello, A.; Infantino, I.; Pilato, G.; Vitale, G. Site experience enhancement and perspective in cultural heritage fruition—A survey on new technologies and methodologies based on a “four-pillars” approach. Future Internet 2021, 13, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Hammady, R.; Ma, M.; Temple, N. Augmented Reality and Gamification in Heritage Museums; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 9894, pp. 181–187. [Google Scholar]
  136. Paliokas, I.; Patenidis, A.T.; Mitsopoulou, E.E.; Tsita, C.; Pehlivanides, G.; Karyati, E.; Tsafaras, S.; Stathopoulos, E.A.; Kokkalas, A.; Diplaris, S.; et al. A Gamified Augmented Reality Application for Digital Heritage and Tourism. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Slavec, A.; Sajincic, N.; Starman, V. Use of smartphone cameras and other applications while traveling to sustain outdoor cultural heritage. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Tzima, S.; Styliaras, G.; Bassounas, A. Revealing hidden local cultural heritage through a serious escape game in outdoor settings. Information 2021, 12, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bujari, A.; Ciman, M.; Gaggi, O. Using gamification to discover cultural heritage locations from geo-tagged photos. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2017, 21, 235–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Vlizos, S.; Sharamyeva, J.-A.; Kotsopoulos, K. Interdisciplinary Design of an Educational Applications Development Platform in a 3D Environment Focused on Cultural Heritage Tourism; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 79–96. [Google Scholar]
  141. Evangelidis, K.; Sylaiou, S.; Papadopoulos, T. Mergin’ Mode: Mixed Reality and Geoinformatics for Monument Demonstration. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Vert, S.; Andone, D.; Ternauciuc, A.; Mihaescu, V.; Rotaru, O.; Mocofan, M.; Orhei, C.; Vasiu, R. User evaluation of a multi-platform digital storytelling concept for cultural heritage. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zhao, Z.J.; Ma, X.J. ShadowPlay2.5D: A 360-degree video authoring tool for immersive appreciation of classical Chinese poetry. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2020, 13, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Jofresa, R.S.; Xirau, M.T.; Ereddam, H.E.B.; Vicente, O. Gamification and Cultural Heritage; UAB Research Park: Barcelona, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  145. Tisserand, Y.; Magnenat-Thalmann, N.; Unzueta, L.; Linaza, M.T.; Ahmadi, A.; O’connor, N.E.; Zioulis, N.; Zarpalas, D.; Daras, P. Preservation and gamification of traditional sports. In Mixed Reality and Gamification for Cultural Heritage; Ioannides, M., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Papagiannakis, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 421–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Hauser, H.; Beisswenger, C.; Partarakis, N.; Zabulis, X.; Adami, I.; Zidianakis, E.; Patakos, A.; Patsiouras, N.; Karuzaki, E.; Foukarakis, M.; et al. Multimodal narratives for the presentation of silk heritage in the museum. Heritage 2022, 5, 461–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Marto, A.; Gonçalves, A.; Melo, M.; Bessa, M. A survey of multisensory vr and ar applications for cultural heritage. Comput. Graph. 2022, 102, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. UNESCO. Intangible Cultural Heritage. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-is-intangible-heritage-00003 (accessed on 22 June 2022).
  149. Lu, W.; Wang, M.; Chen, H. Research on Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Based on Augmented Reality Technology. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020, 1574, 012026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Zhao, Z. Digital protection method of intangible cultural heritage based on augmented reality technology. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Robots & Intelligent System (ICRIS), Huai An, China, 15–16 October 2017; pp. 135–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Yang, T.; Zhao, R. Research on Combination of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences ans Humanities, Moscow, Russia, 14–15 June 2017; Book Series: Advances in Social Science Education and Humanities Research, Tretyakova. Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 124, pp. 536–538. [Google Scholar]
  152. Khan, M. MUSE: Understanding traditional dances. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Minneapolis, MN, USA, 29 March–2 April 2014; pp. 173–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Ziagkas, E.; Stylianidis, P.; Loukovitis, A.; Zilidou, V.; Lilou, O.; Mavropoulou, A.; Douka, S. Greek traditional dances 3d motion capturing and a proposed method for identification through rhythm pattern analyses (terpsichore project). In Strategic Innovative Marketing and Tourism: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Kavoura, A., Kefallonitis, E., Theodoridis, P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Wen, Y.; Chen, J. Intangible cultural heritage display using augmented reality technology of Xtion PRO interaction. Int. J. Simul. Syst. Sci. Technol. 2016, 17, 29.1–29.4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Xie, X.; Tang, X. The application of augmented reality technology in digital display for intangible cultural heritage: The case of cantonese furniture. In Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction in Context; Kurosu, M., Ed.; HCI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 10902, pp. 334–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Laštovička-Medin, G. The Materiality of Interaction & Intangible Heritage: Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 2019 8th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO), Budva, Montenero, 10–14 June 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Huang, W.; Xiang, H.; Li, S. The application of augmented reality and unity 3D in interaction with intangible cultural heritage. Evol. Intell. 2019, 12, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Viinikkala, L.; Yli-Seppälä, L.; Heimo, O.I.; Helle, S.; Härkänen, L.; Jokela, S.; Lehtonen, T. Reforming the representation of the reformation: Mixed reality narratives in communicating tangible and intangible heritage of the protestant reformation in Finland. In Proceedings of the 2016 22nd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 17–21 October 2016; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Europeana: Discover Inspiring European Cultural Heritage. Available online: https://www.europeana.eu (accessed on 6 July 2022).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.