Augmented and virtual reality evolution and future tendency

applied sciences Article Augmented and Virtual Reality Evolution and Future Tendency Luis Muñoz-Saavedra * , Lourdes Miró-Amarante and Manuel Domínguez-Morales Architecture and Computer Technology Department (Universidad de Sevilla), E.T.S Ingeniería Informática, Reina Mercedes Avenue, 41012 Seville, Spain; [email protected] (L.M.-A.); [email protected] (M.D.-M.) *Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 29 November 2019; Accepted: 23 December 2019; Published: 1 January 2020   Abstract: Augmented reality and virtual reality technologies are increasing in popularity. Augmented reality has thrived to date mainly on mobile applications, with games like Pokémon Go or the new Google Maps utility as some of its ambassadors. On the other hand, virtual reality has been popularized mainly thanks to the videogame industry and cheaper devices. However, what was initially a failure in the industrial field is resurfacing in recent years thanks to the technological improvements in devices and processing hardware. In this work, an in-depth study of the different fields in which augmented and virtual reality have been used has been carried out. This study focuses on conducting a thorough scoping review focused on these new technologies, where the evolution of each of them during the last years in the most important categories and in the countries most involved in these technologies will be analyzed. Finally, we will analyze the future trend of these technologies and the areas in which it is necessary to investigate to further integrate these technologies into society. Keywords: augmented reality; virtual reality 1. Introduction Augmented reality and virtual reality are technologies that have been under research for several years [ 1 ]. Even so, there are several products that have been developed in that line and that are accessible to the general public [2,3]. However, due to the society’s needs and variations, these technologies have stagnated in certain areas. Therefore, it is important to know the research evolution they have had in recent years and, thanks to that, to study the current trend in order to anticipate the areas in which they will be applied in the coming years. First, it is convenient to define the concepts of augmented reality and virtual reality in order to better understand the subject of this work. These terms are part of the concept of “virtuality continuum” defined by Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino [ 4 ]. This term describes a continuum that goes from reality itself to virtual reality generated by a computer. Within the virtual continuum, we find the subset of mixed reality, which has been defined as everything between reality and a totally virtual environment (see Figure 1). We can find several definitions of Virtual Reality (VR), but maybe the most global and inclusive way of defining it is as follows: “A Virtual Reality is defined as a real or simulated environment in which a perceiver experiences telepresence”, written by Jonathan Steuer [ 5 ]. This is the chosen definition because it put apart the technology’s implications, and in this way, there is no need to specify any Head Mounted Displays (HDM) or globes and we can focus on techniques and applications to try to figure out what is the path that the technology is following. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322; doi:10.3390/app10010322 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 2 of 23 In the same way, we can define Augmented Reality (AR) as a technique to show extra information over the real world. With this definition, there is no need to talk about specific hardware but we can specify techniques and applications and focus on technology development [6]. Figure 1. Virtual continuum. Although the technologies of AR and VR have been under development for a long time [ 7 ], we can say that it has recently begun to leave the laboratories, thanks in large part to the improvement of the computing capacity and the lowering of the devices [ 8 ]. Nowadays, augmented reality and virtual reality can be used in a mid-range smartphone [ 9 ]. Although, for more immersion, it would be more interesting to use devices that are more sophisticated, although a little more expensive. However, this technology still has a small user niche and a small field of application based primarily on games. In this work, we investigate these technologies’ evolution over the last years, which aspects have evolved more, and the different fields that have been benefited from this evolution. The health sector is one of the fields that have adopted these immersive technologies to help patients, providing training processes for phobias treatments and even for surgery simulations. There are also several scientific studies that demonstrate that virtual reality helps patients reduce stress and anxiety levels in the face of pain perception [ 10 , 11 ]. In the field of education and industry, they stand out as very powerful tools for learning and training, achieving a more efficient, interactive, and participatory learning. The main goal of this work is try to answer these questions: What has been the evolution of AR and VR until now? and What is the trend that AR and VR will have in the coming years? As said before, AR and VR have experienced an evolution in recent years, but it is important to analyze this evolution in depth. Are AR and VR more popular than before? Nowadays, prestigious companies are investing in these technologies. In order to answer the first question, the most relevant works in the last years will be analyzed and the information obtained will be used to get the conclusions about the global evolution of these technologies and the evolution in the different fields and regions. For the second question, the publications over the last years will be examined in detail to check the status of these technologies (peak of research, maturity, production, etc.), and finally, videogame publications regarding these technologies will be studied to know its application to this particular field. There are two other questions we wanted to answer: Has anything been investigated about AR/VR about collaborative interactions to share its information? and Is there any kind of protocol to manage collaborative systems of augmented reality or virtual reality? There are some works inside the videogame industry that use collaborative information sharing (like Pokemon Go as the most popular example), but it is important to know if these interactions and information communications are actually in use in other fields like industry or medicine, along with the protocols used by some popular devices as Oculus Rift. The aim of this study is to determine the communication standards and protocols used to transmit and store virtual information in order to use it as a first step to develop a new communication and storage protocol for collaborative environments that allows all devices to be integrated and that can be applied to all areas. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 3 of 23 The rest of the manuscript is divided as follows: first, the methodology used for the study is presented. Next, the results obtained after the study are detailed and analyzed. Finally, the conclusions are exposed. 2. Methodology The methodology used in this work corresponds to the classical scoping review process. The processing steps used for this work are shown in Figure 2. First, we have to analyze the works and manuscripts of which the information is interesting for this review. Therefore, we need some basic information from these works: title, ISSN (International Standard Serial Number), topic, etc. Then, we have to choose the criteria used for the searching process. After that, each author independently uses the developed guide to search for relevant information inside the works/manuscripts. Next, all the information obtained is collected: the authors exchange their manuscripts, and the searching process starts again. This step is repeated until each author reviews all the manuscripts: in this work, there are three authors, so the total amount of manuscripts reviewed is divided by three and distributed over them. Each author finishes reviewing all the manuscripts after three iterations. Figure 2. Method followed to do the research. At this point, all the information is extracted from the manuscripts, put in common, and mixed. The final review result will be shown in a summarizing table. Finally, this data will be analyzed in order to get the information that answers the questions indicated in the Introduction section. 2.1. Extracted Information In this epigraph, the information extracted from the reviewed manuscripts is detailed. This information is essential in order to get the answers to the initial questions. •Title: Title of the manuscript or work analyzed. • ISSN/ISBN (International Standard Book Number): Publication’s code for a journal manuscript or a book chapter, respectively. •Keywords: Words used during the search process. •Data search: Criteria used to perform the searching process. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 4 of 23 •Publication year: Year of publication of the work reviewed. •Magazine/book: Where the manuscript was published. •Localization: Country where researchers worked during the research. •Paper type: Type of paper between publication or application. • Type of technology: Technology used for the research, Augmented Reality (AR) or Virtual Reality (VR). •Technology analyzed: If the researchers used any commercial technology. • Communication protocol: Name of the protocol used during the development of the work reviewed. • Field of application: Field where the work presented is applied, like education, industry, health, etc. •Specialization: Specialization of paper field. •Software: Is the software available? •Abstract: Paper summary. •Utility: Extra annotations. After describing the most relevant information needed for the study, the searching step will be detailed. 2.2. Searching Phase In order to obtain a large amount of good-quality works to analyze, only scientific papers published in international journals are taken into account. The main search engine used in this work is Google Scholar because it integrates works from several platforms, simplifying this step. If the information is not complete, Mendeley database is used to fill it. The keywords used in the searching process are detailed below: •Virtual Reality •Augmented Reality Google Scholar is configured to search works and patents from the year 2000, so other cites like books or book chapters are not included. The information obtained is sorted by relevance and only English-written papers are taken into account. With this configuration, the firsts 200 entries are extracted, and to be used in this work, it must talk about augmented reality or virtual reality (or include some device that uses one of them). After the first search process (papers from the year 2000), the results obtained are as follows: •Virtual reality: 1,490,000 results, with 22 papers chosen. •Augmented reality: 848,000 results, with 26 papers chosen. After analyzing superficially the results, the first search presents one conclusion: a big amount of the works obtained are obsolete (many papers are outdated), so several papers are not good enough for this work. After that, the searching process is redefined using a different configuration: the starting year is changed to 2010 in order to obtain more recent and relevant works. After the second search process (papers from the year 2010), the results obtained are as follows: •Virtual reality: 322,000 results, with 29 papers chosen. •Augmented reality: 132,000 results, with 54 papers chosen. In this occasion, we obtain less entries than before, but we can pick up more information. Also, to get a more complete manuscript database for this work, two new searches are done using extended keywords: collaborative virtual reality and collaborative augmented reality. As detailed in the introduction section, for a future work, it is important to know if there is enough information about collaborative works that use AR or VR. This final search obtains these results: Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 5 of 23 •Collaborative virtual reality: 27,000 results, with 20 papers chosen. •Collaborative augmented reality: 17,100 results, with 12 papers chosen. Summarizing, all the searches obtain about 1200 potential papers and we select 189 papers after a first filter. Then, as detailed above, we only contemplate international journal works with ISSN, so we take out 26 of them. Finally, we a have a database of 163 papers (this information is shown in Table 1). Table 1. Search process summary. Search Date Results Selected “Virtual Reality” 2000 1,490,000 22 “Augmented Reality” 2000 848,000 26 “Virtual Reality” 2010 322,000 29 “Augmented Reality” 2010 132,000 54 “Virtual Reality” collaborative 2010 27,000 20 “Augmented Reality” collaborative 2010 17,100 12 Total 163 As detailed previously, Table 1shows that the first search was made without good criteria from 2000; that is why the searching configuration changed in the second search from 2010. 3. Results In this section, the results obtained after analyzing the works detailed previously are presented. First, the number of publications evolution is studied and presented. After that, a deep data analysis is done using the geolocation of the authors during the work development and the main topics on which they are focused. 3.1. Manuscript Publication Evolution After collecting the work database, we analyze the number of publications year by year in order to get the evolution on AR and VR fields. In the same way that this information selection is done, we start this analysis from the year 2000 and we use Google Scholar to get the data. As we can see in the Table 2and in Figure 3, nowadays, the popularity on this field is lower than before: this is maybe influenced by the low cost of the technology that made possible working with AR in middle tier smartphones and VR headsets, so these technologies came out from laboratories to the industry and, finally, to the people. To make this hypothesis stronger, we check out Gartner’s hype of cycle [ 12 ]; this hype of cycle is known for estimating the emerging technologies and the time when these technologies will be in production. Gartner’s hype cycle represents the evolution of interest in certain technologies, classifying them in five stages during their interest cycle (in this order): •Technology trigger: technology is starting. •Peak of inflated expectations: companies start to made publications with success and failures. •Trough of disillusionment: most of the experiments and implementation fails. •Slope of enlightenment: second or third generations of the technology appear. •Plateau of productivity: technology is mainstream now. Gartner’s hype cycle evolution for virtual reality and augmented reality technologies can be observed from the year 2000 until now in Figure 4. In this figure, the “x” axis represents the year and the “y” axis represents the Gartner’s hype cycle stage where the technology is placed. The position in this axis is related to the importance inside Gartner’s hype cycle. As can be observed in Figure 4, the first apparition of augmented reality in Gartner’s hype cycle is dated back to 2005. This technology starts in the “Technology trigger” section of the curve until 2010, when it reaches the section “Peak of inflated expectation”. Augmented reality stays in the section Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 6 of 23 “Trough of disillusionment” from 2013 to 2018. Finally, in 2019, it can be found again in the “Technology trigger” section but with the addition of the term “Cloud”. This evolution indicates that, between 2010 and 2012, it was a very popular topic and, after those years, its importance diminished. However, currently, this technology has become interesting again thanks to the inclusion of cloud technologies, which allow computing in the cloud and provide ease of use to the end user. Figure 3. Evolution of publications. Virtual reality technologies appear in different ways inside Gartner’s hype cycle, and all these related terms are taken into account to show its evolution in Figure 4. First, it can be found as “Head mounted display” inside the “Technology trigger” section in 2001. Its next occurrence is in 2007 as the term “Virtual environment/Virtual worlds” located in the “Peak of inflated expectation” section; it stays in this section until 2012. After this year, this term changes its section: in year 2013, it appears in the “Trough of disillusionment” stage. It is important to observe that, from 2013 to 2016, it appears as the term “Virtual Reality”. Finally, in 2016, it reaches the “Slope of enlightenment” stage. Virtual reality disappears from the hype cycle in 2018, so it can be considered to be in the production stage (this fact will be demonstrated after the references analysis). Table 2. Publication evolution. Year AR Number of Publications Variation VR Number of Publications Variation 2000 2300 - 14,100 - 2001 2570 11.74 15,900 12.77 2002 3190 24.12 17,800 11.94 2003 5540 73.67 19,800 11.24 2004 4640 −16.25 23,200 17.17 2005 5160 11.20 24,600 6.03 2006 5820 12.80 29,100 18.29 2007 6670 14.60 29,900 2.75 2008 7410 11.09 34,000 13.71 2009 8070 8.91 36,500 7.35 2010 10,800 33.83 38,600 5.75 2011 13,400 24.07 40,200 4.14 2012 16,900 26.12 42,100 4.73 2013 19,700 16.57 45,700 8.55 2014 24,400 23.86 45,900 0.44 2015 27,600 13.12 46,100 0.44 2016 30,500 10.51 50,700 9.98 2017 35,400 16.06 57,400 13.21 2018 31,100 −12.05 47,600 −17.07 2019 2570 −79.92 27,700 −41.81 Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 7 of 23 Summarizing this first study, after year 2013, both technologies start a decay stage until 2019, when both almost disappear from Gartner’s hype cycle. However, AR is getting a new life as an “AR cloud”, which is a new paradigm that uses cloud technologies with augmented reality works, and it is important to get focus on that too. With this information, we should not expect that virtual reality will increase its importance in the next coming years; however, AR tendency describes a fresh start with the inclusion of cloud technologies, so we should expect an important increase in the works and references in this field in the next years. The numerical data about the total number of publications in those years (not only the papers selected for this work) is shown in Table 2. The data presented in Table 2is represented graphically in Figure 3. In both representations, it is important to observe the tendency detected in Gartner’s hype cycle for AR and VR: the works related to both technologies are decreasing in the last two years. In Gartner’s hype cycle, its decay phase started in 2013–2014 and its consequences are observed in the works and citations four years later. Because of this relation, there is a real possibility that, in the next 3–4 years, there will be an increase in the number of works and publications related to augmented reality due to the increased importance of AR due to the cloud technologies. Figure 4. Evolution of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies in the hype cycle. On the other hand, these technologies are very close to the game industry, so it is important to focus the attention in this sector and study if the same evolution can be observed in this field. To do that, a deep searching process is done using the most famous platforms and devices (like Steam or Oculus Rift), looking for games that use one of them at least. The only way to look for that is using the Steam platform because other platforms do not allow to sort by year or to look for certain keywords. The evolution of publications in the game industry obtained is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5. Evolution of games published in Steam. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 8 of 23 As can be seen, the developed games tendency (see Figure 5) is similar to the manuscript publications in virtual reality (see Figure 3). Game development reaches a peak in 2017 and then starts to decrease. Because of the improvement of virtual reality HDM, it is possible that this tendency will change and become stable in a few years. To do this study in AR, the same problems are observed: Google Play and Oculus do not allow to sort information by year. Only some sporadic works in this area can be observed (like Pokemon Go), but too few works are obtained. Therefore, no tendency can be extracted from this information. 3.2. General Data Analysis A general information study has been done above regarding manuscript publications in the last years. Now, using the methodology described in the previous section, the manuscript database, a subset of 163 manuscripts, is examined deeply in order to obtain more detailed information. This study includes the country where the authors developed the publications and the field of application. 3.2.1. Countries First, a study focused on where the publications come from is carried out. After this study, the regions that are researching and developing AR/VR technologies will be shown. After analyzing the database, results are detailed in Figure 6(top). In this figure, it can be observed that the results are shown in a global way and focus on USA and EU (the regions with more publications in AR and VR). The results of the study show in Figure 6(top) that the European Union (EU) is the region which invests more funds in these fields (34.4% of publications came from this region), the United States of America (USA) follows with 27.3% of the publications, and Australia can be found in third place. As can be seen, EU and USA take up more than 60% of the publications, so the study will focus on these two regions. Now, we will focus on the areas in which these regions are investing. Later, the different topics will be analyzed in detail. As we can see in Figure 6(bottom), both regions have a lot of similarities about fields of publication. However, their main differences came from education and industry: EU made more efforts in industry than USA. In Figure 7, it can be observed that most of the publications are carried out after 2010. We can see that the number of publication of papers decreases. However, this pattern is not the same as seen in Figure 3: in that case, the popularity decreases in 2017, but in this occasion, the peak of popularity is in 2010 and, after that, starts decreasing. This fact can be a consequence of the citation system: older papers have more references than newer ones, so Google Scholar shows first the most cited works; in this case, it gives more importance to those works. Finally, we compare the number of publications of our subset year by year in Figure 7. After studying the general results year by year, they will be separated in the main topics where these technologies are being applied. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 9 of 23 Figure 6. On the top is the percentage of countries which made a research on AR or VR; in the bottom left is the topics researched in the EU; and in the bottom right is the percentage of topics researched in the USA. Figure 7. Comparison of papers chosen year by year: The blue line is the sum of all the papers that year. 3.2.2. Topics The main topics that have been taken into account are research and development (R&D), healthcare, education, and industry. The distribution of the selected works with respect to the selected topics is shown in Figure 8. In Figure 8, it can be seen that the most developed topic is R&D with 34.4% of the works selected, which is quite logical because of the search engine used to select the works (Google Scholar, which is a platform mostly used for research works publications). However, 65.6% of the selected works belong to specific applications. In this section, three relevant topics can be observed: healthcare with 25.8%, education with 17.2%, and finally, industry with 9.8%. We can analyze those results in the same way as above, using a year-by-year classification. These results are shown in Figure 9. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 16 of 23 8. Yung, R.; Khoo-Lattimore, C. New realities: A systematic literature review on virtual reality and augmented reality in tourism research. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019,22, 2056–2081. [CrossRef] 9. Kimura, Y.; Manabe, S.; Ikeda, S.; Kimura, A.; Shibata, F. Can Transparent Virtual Objects Be Represented Realistically on OST-HMDs? In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Osaka, Japan, 23–27 March 2019; pp. 1327–1328. 10. Opri¸s, D.; Pintea, S.; García-Palacios, A.; Botella, C.; Szamosközi, ¸S.; David, D. Virtual reality exposure therapy in anxiety disorders: A quantitative meta-analysis. Depress. Anxiety 2012 ,29, 85–93. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 11. Powers, M.B.; Emmelkamp, P.M. Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis. J. Anxiety Disord. 2008,22, 561–569. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Gartner’s Hype Cycle. Available online: https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartnerhype-cycle (accessed on 26 December 2019). 13. Lai, Z.; Hu, Y.C.; Cui, Y.; Sun, L.; Dai, N.; Lee, H.S. Furion: Engineering High-Quality Immersive Virtual Reality on Today’s Mobile Devices. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2019. [CrossRef] 14. Kruijff, E.; Swan, J.E.; Feiner, S. Perceptual issues in augmented reality revisited. In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality 2010: Science and Technology, ISMAR 2010, Seoul, Korea, 13–16 October 2010. [CrossRef] 15. Hagbi, N.; Bergig, O.; El-Sana, J.; Billinghurst, M. Shape recognition and pose estimation for mobile augmented reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Gr. 2011. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Murphy-Chutorian, E.; Trivedi, M.M. Head pose estimation and augmented reality tracking: An integrated system and evaluation for monitoring driver awareness. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2010. [CrossRef] 17. Zhihan, L.; Yin, T.; Han, Y.; Chen, Y.; Chen, G. WebVR-web virtual reality engine based on P2P network. J. Netw. 2011. [CrossRef] 18. Nicolau, S.; Soler, L.; Mutter, D.; Marescaux, J. Augmented reality in laparoscopic surgical oncology. Surg. Oncol. 2011. [CrossRef] 19. Vankipuram, M.; Kahol, K.; McLaren, A.; Panchanathan, S. A virtual reality simulator for orthopedic basic skills: A design and validation study. J. Biomed. Inform. 2010. [CrossRef] 20. Baus, O.; Bouchard, S. Moving from virtual reality exposure-based therapy to augmented reality exposure-based therapy: A review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014. [CrossRef] 21. Jack, D.; Boian, R.; Merians, A.S.; Tremaine, M.; Burdea, G.C.; Adamovich, S.V.; Recce, M.; Poizner, H. Virtual reality-enhanced stroke rehabilitation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2001. [CrossRef] 22. Hondori, H.M.; Khademi, M.; Dodakian, L.; Cramer, S.C.; Lopes, C.V. A spatial augmented reality rehab system for post-stroke hand rehabilitation. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2013. [CrossRef] 23. Bujak, K.R.; Radu, I.; Catrambone, R.; MacIntyre, B.; Zheng, R.; Golubski, G. A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Comput. Educ. 2013. [CrossRef] 24. Cai, S.; Wang, X.; Chiang, F.K. A case study of Augmented Reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014. [CrossRef] 25. Bressler, D.M.; Bodzin, A.M. A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2013. [CrossRef] 26. Shelton, B.E.; Hedley, N.R. Using augmented reality for teaching Earth-Sun relationships to undergraduate geography students. In Proceedings of the ART 2002—1st IEEE International Augmented Reality Toolkit Workshop, Darmstadt, Germany, 29–29 September 2002. [CrossRef] 27. Monahan, T.; McArdle, G.; Bertolotto, M. Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Comput. Educ. 2008 . [CrossRef] 28. Galambos, P.; Weidig, C.; Baranyi, P.; Aurich, J.C.; Hamann, B.; Kreylos, O. VirCA NET: A case study for collaboration in shared virtual space. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications, CogInfoCom 2012, Kosice, Slovakia, 2–5 December 2012. [CrossRef] 29. Wagner, D.; Barakonyi, I. Augmented reality kanji learning. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR 2003, Tokyo, Japan, 10 October 2003. [CrossRef] 30. Gavish, N.; Gutiérrez, T.; Webel, S.; Rodríguez, J.; Peveri, M.; Bockholt, U.; Tecchia, F. Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2015. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 17 of 23 31. Wang, J.; Feng, Y.; Zeng, C.; Li, S. An augmented reality based system for remote collaborative maintenance instruction of complex products. IEEE Int. Conf. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2014. [CrossRef] 32. De Crescenzio, F.; Fantini, M.; Persiani, F.; Di Stefano, L.; Azzari, P.; Salti, S. Augmented reality for aircraft maintenance training and operations support. IEEE Comput. Gr. Appl. 2011. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Wang, X.; Dunston, P.S. Comparative effectiveness of mixed reality-based virtual environments in collaborative design. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 2011. [CrossRef] 34. Back, M.; Kimber, D.; Rieffel, E.; Dunnigan, A.; Liew, B.; Gattepally, S.; Foote, J.; Shingu, J.; Vaughan, J. The virtual chocolate factory: Building a real world mixed-reality system for industrial collaboration and control. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, ICME 2010, Suntec City, Singapore, 19–23 July 2010. [CrossRef] 35. Poppe, E.; Brown, R.; Johnson, D.; Recker, J. A prototype augmented reality collaborative process modelling tool. In Proceedings of the CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Clermont-Ferrand, France, 28 August–2 September 2011. 36. Matsas, E.; Vosniakos, G.C. Design of a virtual reality training system for human–robot collaboration in manufacturing tasks. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2017. [CrossRef] 37. Qiao, X.; Ren, P.; Dustdar, S.; Liu, L.; Ma, H.; Chen, J. Web AR: A Promising Future for Mobile Augmented Reality-State of the Art, Challenges, and Insights. Proc. IEEE 2019. [CrossRef] 38. Huang, W.; Alem, L.; Tecchia, F.; Duh, H.B.L. Augmented 3D hands: a gesture-based mixed reality system for distributed collaboration. J. Multimodal User Interfaces 2018. [CrossRef] 39. Sutcliffe, A.G.; Kaur, K.D. Evaluating the usability of virtual reality user interfaces. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2000 . [CrossRef] 40. Comport, A.I.; Marchand, É.; Chaumette, F. A real-time tracker for markerless augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR 2003, Washington, DC, USA, 7–10 October 2003. [CrossRef] 41. Wagner, D.; Reitmayr, G.; Mulloni, A.; Drummond, T.; Schmalstieg, D. Real-time detection and tracking for augmented reality on mobile phones. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Gr. 2010. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 42. Bastug, E.; Bennis, M.; Medard, M.; Debbah, M. Toward Interconnected Virtual Reality: Opportunities, Challenges, and Enablers. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017. [CrossRef] 43. Specht, M.; Ternier, S.; Greller, W. Dimensions of Mobile Augmented Reality for Learning: A First Inventory. Res. Educ. Technol. (RCET) 2011,7, 117–127 44. Galambos, P.; Baranyi, P. VirCA as virtual intelligent space for RT-middleware. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Budapest, Hungary, 3–7 July 2011. [CrossRef] 45. Papagiannakis, G.; Singh, G.; Magnenat-Thalmann, N. A survey of mobile and wireless technologies for augmented reality systems. Comput. Anim. Virtual Worlds 2008. [CrossRef] 46. Schmalstieg, D.; Langlotz, T.; Billinghurst, M. Augmented reality 2.0. In Virtual Realities: Dagstuhl Seminar 2008; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2011. [CrossRef] 47. Marchand, E.; Uchiyama, H.; Spindler, F. Pose estimation for augmented reality: A hands-on survey. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Gr. 2015,22, 2633–2651. [CrossRef] 48. Mulloni, A.; Seichter, H.; Schmalstieg, D. Handheld augmented reality indoor navigation with activity-based instructions. In Proceedings of the Mobile HCI 2011—13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, Stockholm, Sweden, 30 August–2 September 2011. [CrossRef] 49. Olsson, T.; Lagerstam, E.; Kärkkäinen, T.; Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. Expected user experience of mobile augmented reality services: A user study in the context of shopping centres. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2013 . [CrossRef] 50. Gervautz, M.; Schmalstieg, D. Anywhere interfaces using handheld augmented reality. Computer 2012 . [CrossRef] 51. Hürst, W.; Van Wezel, C. Gesture-based interaction via finger tracking for mobile augmented reality. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2013. [CrossRef] 52. Clark, A.; Dünser, A. An interactive augmented reality coloring book. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), Costa Mesa, CA, USA, 4–5 March 2012; pp. 7–10. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 18 of 23 53. Vera, L.; Gimeno, J.; Coma, I.; Fernández, M. Augmented mirror: Interactive augmented reality system based on kinect. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 483–486. 54. Gugenheimer, J.; Stemasov, E.; Frommel, J.; Rukzio, E. Sharevr: Enabling co-located experiences for virtual reality between hmd and non-hmd users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; pp. 4021–4033. 55. Kantonen, T.; Woodward, C.; Katz, N. Mixed reality in virtual world teleconferencing. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality, Waltham, MA, USA, 20–24 March 2010. [CrossRef] 56. Benko, H.; Jota, R.; Wilson, A.D. MirageTable: Freehand interaction on a projected augmented reality tabletop. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012. [CrossRef] 57. Maimone, A.; Fuchs, H. Computational augmented reality eyeglasses. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR 2013, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 1–4 October 2013. [CrossRef] 58. Azmandian, M.; Hancock, M.; Benko, H.; Ofek, E.; Wilson, A.D. Haptic retargeting: Dynamic repurposing of passive haptics for enhanced virtual reality experiences. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016. [CrossRef] 59. Wu, D.; Courtney, C.G.; Lance, B.J.; Narayanan, S.S.; Dawson, M.E.; Oie, K.S.; Parsons, T.D. Optimal arousal identification and classification for affective computing using physiological signals: Virtual reality stroop task. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 2010. [CrossRef] 60. Bau, O.; Poupyrev, I. REVEL: Tactile feedback technology for augmented reality. ACM Trans. Gr. 2012 . [CrossRef] 61. Linder, N.; Maes, P. LuminAR: Portable robotic augmented reality interface design and prototype. In Proceedings of the UIST 2010—23rd ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Adjunct Proceedings, New York, NY, USA, 3–6 October 2010. [CrossRef] 62. Dunleavy, M. Design Principles for Augmented Reality Learning. TechTrends 2014. [CrossRef] 63. Squire, K.; Klopfer, E. Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. J. Learn. Sci. 2007 . [CrossRef] 64. Lee, T.; Höllerer, T. Handy AR: Markerless inspection of augmented reality objects using fingertip tracking. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wearable Computers, ISWC, Boston, MA, USA, 11–13 October 2007. [CrossRef] 65. Bozgeyikli, E.; Raij, A.; Katkoori, S.; Dubey, R. Point & teleport locomotion technique for virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, Austin, TX, USA, 16–19 October 2016; pp. 205–216. 66. Carmigniani, J.; Furht, B.; Anisetti, M.; Ceravolo, P.; Damiani, E.; Ivkovic, M. Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2011. [CrossRef] 67. Roesner, F.; Kohno, T.; Molnar, D. Security and privacy for augmented reality systems. Commun. ACM 2014 , 57, 88–96. [CrossRef] 68. Wilson, A.D.; Benko, H.; Izadi, S.; Hilliges, O. Steerable augmented reality with the Beamatron. In Proceedings of the UIST’12—Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 7–10 October 2012. 69. Hahn, J. Mobile augmented reality applications for library services. New Libr. World 2012. [CrossRef] 70. Roth, D.; Lugrin, J.L.; Galakhov, D.; Hofmann, A.; Bente, G.; Latoschik, M.E.; Fuhrmann, A. Avatar realism and social interaction quality in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Greenville, SC, USA, 19–23 March 2016; pp. 277–278. 71. Kasahara, S.; Heun, V.; Lee, A.S.; Ishii, H. Second surface: Multi-user spatial collaboration system based on augmented reality. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2012 Emerging Technologies, SA 2012, Singapore, 28 November–1 December 2012. [CrossRef] 72. Pejsa, T.; Kantor, J.; Benko, H.; Ofek, E.; Wilson, A. Room2Room: Enabling Life-Size telepresence in a projected augmented reality environment. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 February–2 March 2016. [CrossRef] 73. Gelb, D.; Subramanian, A.; Tan, K.H. Augmented reality for immersive remote collaboration. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Workshop on Person-Oriented Vision, POV 2011, Kona, HI, USA, 7 January 2011. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 19 of 23 74. Slater, M.; Spanlang, B.; Sanchez-Vives, M.V.; Blanke, O. First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PLoS ONE 2010. [CrossRef] 75. Riva, G.; Gaggioli, A.; Grassi, A.; Raspelli, S.; Cipresso, P.; Pallavicini, F.; Vigna, C.; Gagliati, A.; Gasco, S.; Donvito, G. NeuroVR 2—A free virtual reality platform for the assessment and treatment in behavioral health care. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2011. [CrossRef] 76. Larsen, C.R.; Oestergaard, J.; Ottesen, B.S.; Soerensen, J.L. The efficacy of virtual reality simulation training in laparoscopy: A systematic review of randomized trials. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2012. [CrossRef] 77. Gurusamy, K.S.; Aggarwal, R.; Palanivelu, L.; Davidson, B.R. Virtual reality training for surgical trainees in laparoscopic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2009,106, 76–78. 78. Sielhorst, T.; Feuerstein, M.; Navab, N. Advanced medical displays: A literature review of augmented reality. IEEE/OSA J. Disp. Technol. 2008. [CrossRef] 79. Riva, G.; Baños, R.M.; Botella, C.; Mantovani, F.; Gaggioli, A. Transforming experience: The potential of augmented reality and virtual reality for enhancing personal and clinical change. Front. Psychiatry 2016. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 80. Perrenot, C.; Perez, M.; Tran, N.; Jehl, J.P.; Felblinger, J.; Bresler, L.; Hubert, J. The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer R is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg. Endosc. 2012. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 81. Yuan, Y.; Steed, A. Is the rubber hand illusion induced by immersive virtual reality? In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality, Waltham, MA, USA, 20–24 March 2010. [CrossRef] 82. Moglia, A.; Ferrari, V.; Morelli, L.; Ferrari, M.; Mosca, F.; Cuschieri, A. A Systematic Review of Virtual Reality Simulators for Robot-assisted Surgery. Eur. Urol. 2016. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 83. Optale, G.; Urgesi, C.; Busato, V.; Marin, S.; Piron, L.; Priftis, K.; Gamberini, L.; Capodieci, S.; Bordin, A. Controlling memory impairment in elderly adults using virtual reality memory training: A randomized controlled pilot study. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2010. [CrossRef] 84. Hansen, C.; Wieferich, J.; Ritter, F.; Rieder, C.; Peitgen, H.O. Illustrative visualization of 3D planning models for augmented reality in liver surgery. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 2010. [CrossRef] 85. Botella, C.; Bretón-López, J.; Quero, S.; Baños, R.; García-Palacios, A. Treating Cockroach Phobia with Augmented Reality. Behav. Ther. 2010. [CrossRef] 86. Bernhardt, S.; Nicolau, S.A.; Soler, L.; Doignon, C. The status of augmented reality in laparoscopic surgery as of 2016. Med. Image Anal. 2017. [CrossRef] 87. Meola, A.; Cutolo, F.; Carbone, M.; Cagnazzo, F.; Ferrari, M.; Ferrari, V. Augmented reality in neurosurgery: A systematic review. Neurosurg. Rev. 2017,40, 537–548. [CrossRef] 88. Patterson, D.R.; Tininenko, J.R.; Schmidt, A.E.; Sharar, S.R. Virtual reality hypnosis: A case report. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn. 2004,52, 27–38. [CrossRef] 89. Bohil, C.J.; Alicea, B.; Biocca, F.A. Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2011. [CrossRef] 90. Gor, M.; McCloy, R.; Stone, R.; Smith, A. Virtual reality laparoscopic simulator for assessment in gynaecology. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2003,110, 181–187. [CrossRef] 91. Tarr, M.J.; Warren, W.H. Virtual reality in behavioral neuroscience and beyond. Nat. Neurosci. 2002 . [CrossRef] [PubMed] 92. Merians, A.S.; Jack, D.; Boian, R.; Tremaine, M.; Burdea, G.C.; Adamovich, S.V.; Recce, M.; Poizner, H. Virtual reality–augmented rehabilitation for patients following stroke. Physical therapy 2002 ,82, 898–915. [CrossRef] 93. Kandalaft, M.R.; Didehbani, N.; Krawczyk, D.C.; Allen, T.T.; Chapman, S.B. Virtual reality social cognition training for young adults with high-functioning autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2013. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 94. Reger, G.M.; Holloway, K.M.; Candy, C.; Rothbaum, B.O.; Difede, J.A.; Rizzo, A.A.; Gahm, G.A. Effectiveness of virtual reality exposure therapy for active duty soldiers in a military mental health clinic. J. Trauma. Stress 2011. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 95. Rizzo, A.; Parsons, T.D.; Lange, B.; Kenny, P.; Buckwalter, J.G.; Rothbaum, B.; Difede, J.A.; Frazier, J.; Newman, B.; Williams, J.; et al. Virtual reality goes to war: A brief review of the future of military behavioral healthcare. J. Clin. Psychol. Med. Settings 2011. [CrossRef] 96. Culbertson, C.; Nicolas, S.; Zaharovits, I.; London, E.D.; Richard De La Garza, I.; Brody, A.L.; Newton, T.F. Methamphetamine craving induced in an online virtual reality environment. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2010,96, 454–460. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 20 of 23 97. Khanal, P.; Vankipuram, A.; Ashby, A.; Vankipuram, M.; Gupta, A.; Drumm-Gurnee, D.; Josey, K.; Tinker, L.; Smith, M. Collaborative virtual reality based advanced cardiac life support training simulator using virtual reality principles. J. Biomed. Inform. 2014. [CrossRef] 98. Su, L.M.; Vagvolgyi, B.P.; Agarwal, R.; Reiley, C.E.; Taylor, R.H.; Hager, G.D. Augmented Reality During Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: Toward Real-Time 3D-CT to Stereoscopic Video Registration. Urology 2009. [CrossRef] 99. Shuhaiber, J.H. Augmented reality in surgery. Arch. Surg. 2004,139, 170–174. [CrossRef] 100. Cecil, J.; Ramanathan, P.; Rahneshin, V.; Prakash, A.; Pirela-Cruz, M. Collaborative virtual environments for orthopedic surgery. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), Madison, WI, USA, 17–20 August 2013; pp. 133–137. 101. Davis, M.C.; Can, D.D.; Pindrik, J.; Rocque, B.G.; Johnston, J.M. Virtual Interactive Presence in Global Surgical Education: International Collaboration Through Augmented Reality. World Neurosurg. 2016 . [CrossRef] [PubMed] 102. Andújar, J.M.; Mejias, A.; Marquez, M.A. Augmented reality for the improvement of remote laboratories: An augmented remote laboratory. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2011. [CrossRef] 103. Sommerauer, P.; Müller, O. Augmented reality in informal learning environments: A field experiment in a mathematics exhibition. Comput. Educ. 2014. [CrossRef] 104. Peña-Ríos, A.; Callaghan, V.; Gardner, M.; Alhaddad, M.J. Remote mixed reality collaborative laboratory activities: Learning activities within the InterReality portal. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology Workshops, WI-IAT 2012, Macau, China, 4–7 December 2012. [CrossRef] 105. Blum, T.; Kleeberger, V.; Bichlmeier, C.; Navab, N. Mirracle: An augmented reality magic mirror system for anatomy education. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshops (VRW), Costa Mesa, CA, USA, 4–8 March 2012; pp. 115–116. 106. Billinghurst, M.; Kato, H.; Poupyrev, I. The MagicBook—Moving seamlessly between reality and virtuality. IEEE Comput. Gr. Appl. 2001. [CrossRef] 107. Lee, K. Augmented Reality in Education and Training. TechTrends 2012. [CrossRef] 108. Pantelidis, V.S. Reasons to Use Virtual Reality in Education and Training Courses and a Model to Determine When to Use Virtual Reality. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 2010,2, 59–70. 109. Kamarainen, A.M.; Metcalf, S.; Grotzer, T.; Browne, A.; Mazzuca, D.; Tutwiler, M.S.; Dede, C. EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Comput. Educ. 2013 . [CrossRef] 110. Klopfer, E.; Sheldon, J. Augmenting your own reality: Student authoring of science-based augmented reality games. New Dir. Youth Dev. 2010,2010, 85–94. [CrossRef] 111. Enyedy, N.; Danish, J.A.; Delacruz, G.; Kumar, M. Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 2012. [CrossRef] 112. Sharma, S.; Agada, R.; Ruffin, J. Virtual reality classroom as an constructivist approach. In Proceedings of the Conference Proceedings—IEEE SOUTHEASTCON, Jacksonville, FL, USA, 4–7 April 2013. [CrossRef] 113. Ke, F.; Hsu, Y.C. Mobile augmented-reality artifact creation as a component of mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. Internet High. Educ. 2015. [CrossRef] 114. Galambos, P.; Baranyi, P.; Rudas, I.J. Merged physical and virtual reality in collaborative virtual workspaces: The VirCA approach. In Proceedings of the IECON Proceedings (Industrial Electronics Conference), Dallas, TX, USA, 29 October–1 November 2014. [CrossRef] 115. Bottecchia, S.; Cieutat, J.M.; Jessel, J.P. TAC: Augmented reality system for collaborative tele-assistance in the field of maintenance through internet. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Megève, France, 2–3 April 2010. [CrossRef] 116. Henderson, S.J.; Feiner, S.K. Augmented reality in the psychomotor phase of a procedural task. In Proceedings of the 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR 2011, Basel, Switzerland, 26–29 October 2011. [CrossRef] 117. Henderson, S.; Feiner, S. Exploring the benefits of augmented reality documentation for maintenance and repair. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Gr. 2011. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 118. Du, J.; Zou, Z.; Shi, Y.; Zhao, D. Zero latency: Real-time synchronization of BIM data in virtual reality for collaborative decision-making. Autom. Constr. 2018. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 21 of 23 119. Gauglitz, S.; Nuernberger, B.; Turk, M.; Höllerer, T. In touch with the remote world: Remote collaboration with augmented reality drawings and virtual navigation. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, VRST, Edinburgh, UK, 11–13 November 2014. [CrossRef] 120. Morgan, C.L. (Re)Building çatalhöyük: Changing virtual reality in archaeology. Archaeologies 2009 . [CrossRef] 121. Vlahakis, V.; Ioannidis, M.; Karigiannis, J.; Tsotros, M.; Gounaris, M.; Stricker, D.; Gleue, T.; Daehne, P.; Almeida, L. Archeoguide: An augmented reality guide for archaeological sites. IEEE Comput. Gr. Appl. 2002 , 22, 52–60. [CrossRef] 122. Haugstvedt, A.-C.; Krogstie, J. Mobile augmented reality for cultural heritage: A technology acceptance study. In Proceedings of the ISMAR 2012—11th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality 2012, Science and Technology Papers, Atlanta, GA, USA, 5–8 November 2012. [CrossRef] 123. Whyte, J. Industrial applications of virtual reality in architecture and construction. Electron. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2003,8, 43–50. 124. Thomas, B.; Close, B.; Donoghue, J.; Squires, J.; De Bondi, P.; Morris, M.; Piekarski, W. ARQuake: An outdoor/indoor augmented reality first person application. In Proceedings of the Digest of Papers. Fourth International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Atlanta, GA, USA, 16–17 October 2000; pp. 139–146. 125. Wang, X.; Kim, M.J.; Love, P.E.; Kang, S.C. Augmented reality in built environment: Classification and implications for future research. Autom. Constr. 2013. [CrossRef] 126. Goulding, J.; Nadim, W.; Petridis, P.; Alshawi, M. Construction industry offsite production: A virtual reality interactive training environment prototype. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2012. [CrossRef] 127. Chi, H.L.; Kang, S.C.; Wang, X. Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality applications in architecture, engineering, and construction. Autom. Constr. 2013. [CrossRef] 128. Guttentag, D.A. Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tour. Manag. 2010. [CrossRef] 129. Carrozzino, M.; Bergamasco, M. Beyond virtual museums: Experiencing immersive virtual reality in real museums. J. Cult. Herit. 2010. [CrossRef] 130. Kounavis, C.D.; Kasimati, A.E.; Zamani, E.D. Enhancing the tourism experience through mobile augmented reality: Challenges and prospects. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2012. [CrossRef] 131. Yovcheva, Z.; Buhalis, D.; Gatzidis, C. Smartphone augmented reality applications for tourism. E-Rev. Tour. Res. 2012,10, 63–66. 132. Olshannikova, E.; Ometov, A.; Koucheryavy, Y.; Olsson, T. Visualizing Big Data with augmented and virtual reality: Challenges and research agenda. J. Big Data 2015. [CrossRef] 133. Belousov, I.R.; Chellali, R.; Clapworthy, G.J. Virtual reality tools for internet robotics. In Proceedings of the 2001 ICRA. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 01CH37164), Seoul, Korea, 21–26 May 2001; Volume 2, pp. 1878–1883. 134. Levin, M.F. Can virtual reality offer enriched environments for rehabilitation? Exp. Rev. Neurother. 2011 [CrossRef] 135. Sveistrup, H. Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2004. [CrossRef] 136. Saposnik, G.; Levin, M.; Group, S.O.R.C.S.W. Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: A meta-analysis and implications for clinicians. Stroke 2011,42, 1380–1386. [CrossRef] 137. Tsai, M.D.; Hsieh, M.S.; Jou, S.B. Virtual reality orthopedic surgery simulator. Comput. Biol. Med. 2001 . [CrossRef] 138. Wu, H.K.; Lee, S.W.Y.; Chang, H.Y.; Liang, J.C. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Comput. Educ. 2013. [CrossRef] 139. Billinghurst, M.; Kato, H. Collaborative augmented reality. Commun. ACM 2002. [CrossRef] 140. Iwata, N.; Fujiwara, M.; Kodera, Y.; Tanaka, C.; Ohashi, N.; Nakayama, G.; Koike, M.; Nakao, A. Construct validity of the LapVR virtual-reality surgical simulator. Surg. Endosc. 2011. [CrossRef] 141. Santos, M.E.C.; Chen, A.; Taketomi, T.; Yamamoto, G.; Miyazaki, J.; Kato, H. Augmented reality learning experiences: Survey of prototype design and evaluation. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2014. [CrossRef] 142. Liao, H.; Inomata, T.; Sakuma, I.; Dohi, T. 3-D augmented reality for MRI-guided surgery using integral videography autostereoscopic image overlay. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2010. [CrossRef] 143. Ibayashi, H.; Sugiura, Y.; Sakamoto, D.; Miyata, N.; Tada, M.; Okuma, T.; Kurata, T.; Mochimaru, M.; Igarashi, T. Dollhouse vr: A multi-view, multi-user collaborative design workspace with vr technology. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2015 Emerging Technologies, Kobe, Japan, 2–6 November 2015; p. 8. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 22 of 23 144. Buchmann, V.; Violich, S.; Billinghurst, M.; Cockburn, A. FingARtips: Gesture based direct manipulation in Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques in Australasia and South East Asia, Singapore, 15–18 June 2004; pp. 212–221. 145. Piumsomboon, T.; Clark, A.; Billinghurst, M.; Cockburn, A. User-Defined Gestures for Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, 27 April–2 May 2013. [CrossRef] 146. Lepetit, V.; Vacchetti, L.; Thalmann, D.; Fua, P. Fully automated and stable registration for augmented reality applications. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR 2003, Tokyo, Japan, 7–10 October 2003. [CrossRef] 147. Brütsch, K.; Schuler, T.; Koenig, A.; Zimmerli, L.; Koeneke, S.M.; Lünenburger, L.; Riener, R.; Jäncke, L.; Meyer-Heim, A. Influence of virtual reality soccer game on walking performance in robotic assisted gait training for children. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 2010. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 148. Cuendet, S.; Bonnard, Q.; Do-Lenh, S.; Dillenbourg, P. Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Comput. Educ. 2013. [CrossRef] 149. Gammeter, S.; Gassmann, A.; Bossard, L.; Quack, T.; Van Gool, L. Server-side object recognition and client-side object tracking for mobile augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition—Workshops, CVPRW 2010, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–18 June 2010. [CrossRef] 150. Agusanto, K.; Li, L.; Zhu, C.; Ng, W.S. Photorealistic rendering for augmented reality using environment illumination. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR 2003, Tokyo, Japan, 7–10 October 2003. [CrossRef] 151. Nee, A.Y.; Ong, S.K.; Chryssolouris, G.; Mourtzis, D. Augmented reality applications in design and manufacturing. CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 2012. [CrossRef] 152. Wang, S.; Mao, Z.; Zeng, C.; Gong, H.; Li, S.; Chen, B. A new method of virtual reality based on unity3D. In Proceedings of the 2010 18th International Conference on Geoinformatics, Geoinformatics 2010, Beijing, China, 18–20 June 2010. [CrossRef] 153. Duque, G.; Boersma, D.; Loza-Diaz, G.; Hassan, S.; Suarez, H.; Geisinger, D.; Suriyaarachchi, P.; Sharma, A.; Demontiero, O. Effects of balance training using a virtual-reality system in older fallers. Clin. Interv. Aging 2013. [CrossRef] 154. Bower, M.; Howe, C.; McCredie, N.; Robinson, A.; Grover, D. Augmented Reality in education—Cases, places and potentials. Educ. Med. Int. 2014. [CrossRef] 155. Bower, M.; Lee, M.J.; Dalgarno, B. Collaborative learning across physical and virtual worlds: Factors supporting and constraining learners in a blended reality environment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2017 . [CrossRef] 156. Dey, A.; Piumsomboon, T.; Lee, Y.; Billinghurst, M. Effects of sharing physiological states of players in collaborative virtual reality gameplay. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017. [CrossRef] 157. Wang, X.; Love, P.E.; Kim, M.J.; Wang, W. Mutual awareness in collaborative design: An Augmented Reality integrated telepresence system. Comput. Ind. 2014. [CrossRef] 158. Piumsomboon, T.; Lee, Y.; Lee, G.; Billinghurst, M. CoVAR: A collaborative virtual and augmented reality system for remote collaboration. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2017 Emerging Technologies, SA 2017, Bangkok, Thailand, 27–30 November 2017. [CrossRef] 159. Bishop, I.D.; Stock, C. Using collaborative virtual environments to plan wind energy installations. Renew. Energy 2010. [CrossRef] 160. Cho, S.; Ku, J.; Cho, Y.K.; Kim, I.Y.; Kang, Y.J.; Jang, D.P.; Kim, S.I. Development of virtual reality proprioceptive rehabilitation system for stroke patients. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 2014 . [CrossRef] [PubMed] 161. Wang, X.; Love, P.E.; Kim, M.J.; Park, C.S.; Sing, C.P.; Hou, L. A conceptual framework for integrating building information modeling with augmented reality. Autom. Constr. 2013. [CrossRef] 162. Le, Q.T.; Pedro, A.; Park, C.S. A Social Virtual Reality Based Construction Safety Education System for Experiential Learning. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. Theory Appl. 2015. [CrossRef] 163. Akçayır, M.; Akçayır, G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 322 23 of 23 164. Yilmaz, R.M. Educational magic toys developed with augmented reality technology for early childhood education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016. [CrossRef] 165. El Sayed, N.A.; Zayed, H.H.; Sharawy, M.I. ARSC: Augmented reality student card. Comput. Educ. 2011 . [CrossRef] 166. Portman, M.E.; Natapov, A.; Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. To go where no man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015 . [CrossRef] 167. Gurevich, P.; Lanir, J.; Cohen, B.; Stone, R. TeleAdvisor: A versatile augmented reality tool for remote assistance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX, USA, 5–10 May 2012; pp. 619–622. c 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).