Next Article in Journal
Thermodynamic and Exergoeconomic Analysis of a Supercritical CO2 Cycle Integrated with a LiBr-H2O Absorption Heat Pump for Combined Heat and Power Generation
Next Article in Special Issue
VES: A Mixed-Reality System to Assist Multisensory Spatial Perception and Cognition for Blind and Visually Impaired People
Previous Article in Journal
Robust and Accurate Wi-Fi Fingerprint Location Recognition Method Based on Deep Neural Network
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mobile AR: User Evaluation in a Cultural Heritage Context
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 10
Issue 1
10.3390/app10010322
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Augmented and Virtual Reality Evolution and Future Tendency

by
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
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(1), 322; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010322
Submission received: 29 November 2019 / Revised: 18 December 2019 / Accepted: 23 December 2019 / Published: 1 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Augmented Reality: Current Trends, Challenges and Prospects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

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.

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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
  • 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:
  • 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).
As detailed previously, Table 1 shows 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 2 and 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 “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.
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).
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 2 is 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.
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.
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.

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.
In Figure 9, some details belonging to each topic and its evolution are observed. R&D reaches its peak of popularity in 2010 and 2011, but it slowly decreases until 2016, when it reaches a small peak, and starts to decrease again. In healthcare, it also reaches popularity peak in 2010 and starts to decrease until 2017. In education, the popularity peak is reached in 2012 and 2013. Industry’s publications are almost stable from 2010.
In the next subsections, these topics are studied deeply in order to find more information about them. Also, we will study its evolution in the EU and in the USA.
A.
Research and Development
This topic is the most referenced. In this field, many specializations are covered but are not going to be represented because of the multiple fragmentations that can be obtained. For example, we can observe works about integrating VR on mobile devices [13], papers about issues in AR [14], works about pose estimation [15,16], works about how to use P2P (peer-to-peer) networks to make collaborative systems for AR [17], etc.
From the database used in this work, those manuscripts in which the main topic is related to research and development are divided in countries, and the results are shown in Figure 10.
Although several countries are represented in Figure 10, EU and USA cover 61.6% of the publications. The remaining 38.4% is very fragmented between Asiatic and Oceania countries.
B.
Healthcare
As we see in Figure 8, healthcare is the most popular field of application of AR and VR. First, we will analyze the topics studied.
In Figure 11 (top left), it can be observed that the most relevant subtopic is surgery, followed closely by psychology and rehabilitation. In the surgery field, there are several works for helping surgeons before or during surgery [18], training for surgery in order to minimize risks [19], or even some systems to introduce students to this field. In psychology, we found papers focused, for example, on phobias [20]. In rehabilitation, most of the works are related to helping stroke patients [21,22].
Focusing the attention in EU and USA regions (see Figure 11 (bottom)), the analyzed data shows that surgery and psychology are the most relevant topics: both cover almost 95% of the total publications in those regions. In the USA, psychology takes a bit more interest than surgery and rehabilitation is an important topic to be taken into account.
This study is extended to all the regions around the world to compare the results (see Figure 11 (top right)). As expected, EU and USA are the regions with more contributions.
C.
Education
In this section, the main attention is focused on the topic of education. The process made for the previous topic is done for this one too, analyzing the results after that. Those results are shown in Figure 12.
The works related to these topics are divided in three categories: first, “Early” stage is related to works focused on the early stages of the education, up to 10 or 11 years old; “Middle” is used to denote works for high school until they are 18 years old; and finally, the category “High” is used for works applied to university studies. Figure 12 (top left) shows that the most present category is “Middle”: related to that, we can find works focused on helping students with maths [23] or science [24,25], among others. In the category “Early”, we can find works focused on teaching kids about science, too [26]. Finally, in the category “High”, works are focused on applying complex teaching techniques like collaborations [27,28]. We also found works which used AR/VR technologies to teach languages [29] in more than one category.
The information obtained from Figure 12 shows that 50% percent of manuscripts found deal with working with students from middle school. Another important conclusion is that works with higher levels look more interesting than early levels (more citations).
In Figure 12 (bottom), it can be observed that EU is focused mainly on the “Middle” and “High” levels but, in USA, the “Middle” education category covers 63.3% of the works while the “High” category covers less than 10%.
Finally, observing Figure 12 (top right), the main regions focused on this topic are EU and USA, covering 60% of the contributions.
D.
Industry
Finally, the industry topic is analyzed in the same way as the previous topics. The summarized information can be seen in Figure 13.
The information presented in Figure 13 is divided in three categories. The first and more popular one is “Maintenance”, covering 50% of the studied works: in this topic, we can find techniques to maintain factories [30,31] or aircraft [32]. The second category is “Productivity”, which is fundamental in modern industries in order to obtain better results and more efficiency in the daily industry; this can be done to help workers work with industrial robots or to even use some applications to make realistic 3D models and to share with colleagues [33,34,35]. Finally, the category “Training”, with 12.5% of the publications, covers works focused on helping workers to learn how to use their equipment [36].
Figure 13 (bottom) presents the analyzed information from USA and EU. It can be observed that 71% of the EU’s works belong to the “Maintenance” category. Therefore, the “Training” and “Productivity” categories remain in second place in the EU. On the other side, USA’s works within this topic are focused on productivity and maintenance equally.
Finally, Figure 13 (top right) presents the total distribution by countries. As can be seen, the EU and USA cover 60% of the publications.

4. Conclusions

Results have been presented in different ways, focusing the information in countries and topics. In this way, it is easier to understand the future tendency of AR and VR technologies. First, all the results are summarized in Table 3. After this, the results and its tendency are analyzed and described.
In Table 3, the information summary is analyzed for the main topics (R&D, healthcare, education, and industry) within the two most relevant regions (EU and USA). However, in this investigation, relevant works focused on other categories or topics have been found. For example, we also found papers about archaeology [120,121,122], architecture [123], videogames [124], construction [125,126,127], tourism [128,129,130,131], geography [17], or big data visualization [132].
Moreover, relevant contributions from other countries can be found. For example, from Russia [133], Canada [20,134,135,136], Taiwan [137,138], Japan [139,140,141,142,143], New Zealand [15,144,145], Switzerland [146,147,148,149], Singapore [150,151], China [31,152], Australia [35,153,154,155,156,157,158,159], Korea [33,160,161,162], Turkey [163,164], Egypt [165], Malaysia [6], or Israel [166,167].
Once the information has been presented and analyzed, it is important to return to the main objective of this work. In the introduction, four main questions were detailed and, after this work, we are able to answer them.
The first one was what has been the evolution of AR and VR until now?
As have been detailed during this work, a lot of works focused on AR and VR fields have been developed. A huge amount of papers have been published involving countries around the world, but we can see that EU and USA are the main centers of investigation for these technologies. We can also see that most of the publications can be grouped in four topics: research and development, healthcare, education, and industry.
The second question presented was what is the trend that AR and VR will have in the coming years?
Using the information obtained from the total number of publications observed year by year and Gartner’s hype cycle evolution tendency observed in the publications, AR and VR technologies are losing popularity. Researches in these areas will continue working on them, but the number of publications will decrease until they reach stability. In the videogame industry, the tendency observed is similar to the one presented in the other fields. One of the most downloaded and played games (Pokemon Go) is based on AR technology, but there are no popular games that use VR technology, although there is a small and stable niche market. AR technology does not have a popular tool to make videogames, but it is very common to find it in several works about surgery, industry, or education. We also can conclude that AR popularity will grow in the next years thanks to the evolution of cloud technologies and the possibilities that they can contribute to AR.
Third question was has anything been investigated about AR/VR about collaborative interactions to share its information?
There is not much researching projects focused on this topic, but we can find some like VirCA (Virtual Collaboration Arena) project, which is focused in robotic control [28,44,114].
The final question was is there any kind of protocol to manage collaborative systems of augmented reality or virtual reality?
Developers of VirCA project use Robotics Technology Middleware (RT-Middleware) to make their scenarios, and the interconnection is made using a VPN (Virtual Private Network). Apart from this, we did not find any protocol.
After answering the questions presented at the beginning of this work and after carrying out the analysis about publications in AR and VR technologies, it can be concluded that we are currently in a stage of decline of these technologies. However, there are certain areas where the trend is stable or slightly upward. In addition, thanks to the evolution of cloud technologies, it is very possible that the tendency will change in the coming years. We can infer that the interest slope observed in these technologies can change but will need the help of new technologies, such as 5G, which will make possible lighter and smarter devices, or AR cloud, which can help to compute the most complex information. Other technologies, like artificial intelligence paradigms or biosensors, are also suitable to be integrated with AR and VR applications but, as can be observed in Gartner’s curve, only cloud technologies are linked to the augmented reality field. Moreover, AR applications need powerful hardware systems; thus, it will be normal that the first technology of all of them that joins AR is the cloud one.
About collaborative environments, only a few works are focused on creating such types of environments. In addition, there are virtually no standardized mechanisms to represent and send information from the virtual environment, which may be one of the reasons why there are no advances in collaborative environments. If future works focus on developing standards in this way, devices from different manufacturers and with different encoding could be integrated into a single virtual environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: L.M.-S. and L.M.-A.; methodology: L.M.-S. and M.D.-M.; software: L.M.-S.; validation: L.M.-S. and L.M.-A.; formal analysis: L.M.-A. and M.D.-M.; investigation: L.M.-S.; writing: L.M.-S., L.M.-A., and M.D.-M.; supervision: L.M.-A. and M.D.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Telefonica Chair “Intelligence in Networks” of the Universidad de Sevilla, Spain.

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by the Telefonica Chair “Intelligence in Networks” of the Universidad de Sevilla, Spain.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pucihar, K.Č.; Coulton, P. Exploring the evolution of mobile augmented reality for future entertainment systems. Comput. Entertain. CIE 2013, 11, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Paavilainen, J.; Korhonen, H.; Alha, K.; Stenros, J.; Koskinen, E.; Mayra, F. The Pokémon GO experience: A location-based augmented reality mobile game goes mainstream. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; pp. 2493–2498. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lv, Z.; Halawani, A.; Feng, S.; Ur Réhman, S.; Li, H. Touch-less interactive augmented reality game on vision-based wearable device. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Milgram, P.; Kishino, F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994, 77, 1321–1329. [Google Scholar]
  5. Steuer, J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. J. Commun. 1992, 42, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nincarean, D.; Alia, M.B.; Halim, N.D.A.; Rahman, M.H.A. Mobile Augmented Reality: the potential for education. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 103, 657–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Bajura, M.; Neumann, U. Dynamic registration correction in video-based augmented reality systems. IEEE Comput. Gr. Appl. 1995, 15, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar]
  10. Opriş, D.; Pintea, S.; García-Palacios, A.; Botella, C.; Szamosközi, Ş.; David, D. Virtual reality exposure therapy in anxiety disorders: A quantitative meta-analysis. Depress. Anxiety 2012, 29, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gartner’s Hype Cycle. Available online: https://www.gartner.com/en/research/methodologies/gartner-hype-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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhihan, L.; Yin, T.; Han, Y.; Chen, Y.; Chen, G. WebVR-web virtual reality engine based on P2P network. J. Netw. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nicolau, S.; Soler, L.; Mutter, D.; Marescaux, J. Augmented reality in laparoscopic surgical oncology. Surg. Oncol. 2011. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Monahan, T.; McArdle, G.; Bertolotto, M. Virtual reality for collaborative e-learning. Comput. Educ. 2008. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sutcliffe, A.G.; Kaur, K.D. Evaluating the usability of virtual reality user interfaces. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2000. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bastug, E.; Bennis, M.; Medard, M.; Debbah, M. Toward Interconnected Virtual Reality: Opportunities, Challenges, and Enablers. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Schmalstieg, D.; Langlotz, T.; Billinghurst, M. Augmented reality 2.0. In Virtual Realities: Dagstuhl Seminar 2008; Springer: Vienna, Austria, 2011. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gervautz, M.; Schmalstieg, D. Anywhere interfaces using handheld augmented reality. Computer 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hürst, W.; Van Wezel, C. Gesture-based interaction via finger tracking for mobile augmented reality. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bau, O.; Poupyrev, I. REVEL: Tactile feedback technology for augmented reality. ACM Trans. Gr. 2012. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Dunleavy, M. Design Principles for Augmented Reality Learning. TechTrends 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Squire, K.; Klopfer, E. Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. J. Learn. Sci. 2007. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  66. Carmigniani, J.; Furht, B.; Anisetti, M.; Ceravolo, P.; Damiani, E.; Ivkovic, M. Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Roesner, F.; Kohno, T.; Molnar, D. Security and privacy for augmented reality systems. Commun. ACM 2014, 57, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar]
  69. Hahn, J. Mobile augmented reality applications for library services. New Libr. World 2012. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Slater, M.; Spanlang, B.; Sanchez-Vives, M.V.; Blanke, O. First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PLoS ONE 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar]
  78. Sielhorst, T.; Feuerstein, M.; Navab, N. Advanced medical displays: A literature review of augmented reality. IEEE/OSA J. Disp. Technol. [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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® is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg. Endosc. 2012. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Botella, C.; Bretón-López, J.; Quero, S.; Baños, R.; García-Palacios, A. Treating Cockroach Phobia with Augmented Reality. Behav. Ther. 2010. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bohil, C.J.; Alicea, B.; Biocca, F.A. Virtual reality in neuroscience research and therapy. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2011. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tarr, M.J.; Warren, W.H. Virtual reality in behavioral neuroscience and beyond. Nat. Neurosci. 2002. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shuhaiber, J.H. Augmented reality in surgery. Arch. Surg. 2004, 139, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sommerauer, P.; Müller, O. Augmented reality in informal learning environments: A field experiment in a mathematics exhibition. Comput. Educ. 2014. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  106. Billinghurst, M.; Kato, H.; Poupyrev, I. The MagicBook—Moving seamlessly between reality and virtuality. IEEE Comput. Gr. Appl. 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lee, K. Augmented Reality in Education and Training. TechTrends 2012. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Henderson, S.; Feiner, S. Exploring the benefits of augmented reality documentation for maintenance and repair. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Gr. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Morgan, C.L. (Re)Building çatalhöyük: Changing virtual reality in archaeology. Archaeologies 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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; 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Whyte, J. Industrial applications of virtual reality in architecture and construction. Electron. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2003, 8, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Guttentag, D.A. Virtual reality: Applications and implications for tourism. Tour. Manag. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Carrozzino, M.; Bergamasco, M. Beyond virtual museums: Experiencing immersive virtual reality in real museums. J. Cult. Herit. 2010. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Yovcheva, Z.; Buhalis, D.; Gatzidis, C. Smartphone augmented reality applications for tourism. E-Rev. Tour. Res. 2012, 10, 63–66. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar]
  134. Levin, M.F. Can virtual reality offer enriched environments for rehabilitation? Exp. Rev. Neurother. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Sveistrup, H. Motor rehabilitation using virtual reality. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Tsai, M.D.; Hsieh, M.S.; Jou, S.B. Virtual reality orthopedic surgery simulator. Comput. Biol. Med. 2001. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Billinghurst, M.; Kato, H. Collaborative augmented reality. Commun. ACM 2002. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  148. Cuendet, S.; Bonnard, Q.; Do-Lenh, S.; Dillenbourg, P. Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Comput. Educ. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Nee, A.Y.; Ong, S.K.; Chryssolouris, G.; Mourtzis, D. Augmented reality applications in design and manufacturing. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Bower, M.; Howe, C.; McCredie, N.; Robinson, A.; Grover, D. Augmented Reality in education—Cases, places and potentials. Educ. Med. Int. 2014. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Bishop, I.D.; Stock, C. Using collaborative virtual environments to plan wind energy installations. Renew. Energy 2010. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Yilmaz, R.M. Educational magic toys developed with augmented reality technology for early childhood education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. El Sayed, N.A.; Zayed, H.H.; Sharawy, M.I. ARSC: Augmented reality student card. Comput. Educ. 2011. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar] [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. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 10 00322 g001 550
Figure 1. Virtual continuum.
Figure 1. Virtual continuum.
Applsci 10 00322 g001
Applsci 10 00322 g002 550
Figure 2. Method followed to do the research.
Figure 2. Method followed to do the research.
Applsci 10 00322 g002
Applsci 10 00322 g003 550
Figure 3. Evolution of publications.
Figure 3. Evolution of publications.
Applsci 10 00322 g003
Applsci 10 00322 g004 550
Figure 4. Evolution of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies in the hype cycle.
Figure 4. Evolution of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies in the hype cycle.
Applsci 10 00322 g004
Applsci 10 00322 g005 550
Figure 5. Evolution of games published in Steam.
Figure 5. Evolution of games published in Steam.
Applsci 10 00322 g005
Applsci 10 00322 g006 550
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 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.
Applsci 10 00322 g006
Applsci 10 00322 g007 550
Figure 7. Comparison of papers chosen year by year: The blue line is the sum of all the papers that year.
Figure 7. Comparison of papers chosen year by year: The blue line is the sum of all the papers that year.
Applsci 10 00322 g007
Applsci 10 00322 g008 550
Figure 8. Distribution of developed fields.
Figure 8. Distribution of developed fields.
Applsci 10 00322 g008
Applsci 10 00322 g009 550
Figure 9. Evolution of publications of all topics.
Figure 9. Evolution of publications of all topics.
Applsci 10 00322 g009
Applsci 10 00322 g010 550
Figure 10. Publications by countries in R&D.
Figure 10. Publications by countries in R&D.
Applsci 10 00322 g010
Applsci 10 00322 g011 550
Figure 11. Information about publications on healthcare: in the top left image is the percentage of publications made on healthcare. In the top right is the percentage of publications made by countries. In the bottom left is the publications made in the EU, and in the right bottom is the information of publications made in USA.
Figure 11. Information about publications on healthcare: in the top left image is the percentage of publications made on healthcare. In the top right is the percentage of publications made by countries. In the bottom left is the publications made in the EU, and in the right bottom is the information of publications made in USA.
Applsci 10 00322 g011
Applsci 10 00322 g012 550
Figure 12. Information about publications on education: in the top left image is the percentage of publications analyzed in education. In the top right is the percentage of publications made by countries. In the bottom left is the publications made in the EU, and in the right bottom is the information of publications made in the USA.
Figure 12. Information about publications on education: in the top left image is the percentage of publications analyzed in education. In the top right is the percentage of publications made by countries. In the bottom left is the publications made in the EU, and in the right bottom is the information of publications made in the USA.
Applsci 10 00322 g012
Applsci 10 00322 g013 550
Figure 13. Information about publications on industry: in the top left image is the percentage of publications analyzed in industry. In the top right is the percentage of publications made by countries. In the bottom left is the publications made in the EU, and in the right bottom is the information of publications made in the USA.
Figure 13. Information about publications on industry: in the top left image is the percentage of publications analyzed in industry. In the top right is the percentage of publications made by countries. In the bottom left is the publications made in the EU, and in the right bottom is the information of publications made in the USA.
Applsci 10 00322 g013
Table
Table 1. Search process summary.
Table 1. Search process summary.
SearchDateResultsSelected
“Virtual Reality”20001,490,00022
“Augmented Reality”2000848,00026
“Virtual Reality”2010322,00029
“Augmented Reality”2010132,00054
“Virtual Reality” collaborative201027,00020
“Augmented Reality” collaborative201017,10012
Total163
Table
Table 2. Publication evolution.
Table 2. Publication evolution.
YearAR Number of PublicationsVariationVR Number of PublicationsVariation
20002300-14,100-
2001257011.7415,90012.77
2002319024.1217,80011.94
2003554073.6719,80011.24
20044640−16.2523,20017.17
2005516011.2024,6006.03
2006582012.8029,10018.29
2007667014.6029,9002.75
2008741011.0934,00013.71
200980708.9136,5007.35
201010,80033.8338,6005.75
201113,40024.0740,2004.14
201216,90026.1242,1004.73
201319,70016.5745,7008.55
201424,40023.8645,9000.44
201527,60013.1246,1000.44
201630,50010.5150,7009.98
201735,40016.0657,40013.21
201831,100−12.0547,600−17.07
20192570−79.9227,700−41.81
Table
Table 3. Summary of publications by topics EU and USA.
Table 3. Summary of publications by topics EU and USA.
TopicRegionReferencesSpecializationTendency
R&DEU[3,14,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]Web AR, Tracking, Real-time.Probably
USA[13,16,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]Mobile, Web AR, Freehand.increase
Health careEU[10,11,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87]Psychology, Laparoscopic, Phobias, Surgery.Increase
USA[19,22,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101]Rehab, Surgery, Stroke.
EducationEU[27,29,102,103,104,105]Maths, Science, Anatomy, Language.Decrease
USA[23,25,26,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113]
IndustryEU[30,32,36,114,115]Maintenance, Assembly, Aircraft.Stable or
USA[34,116,117,118,119]Procedural task, Remote collaboration.few publication

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muñoz-Saavedra, L.; Miró-Amarante, L.; Domínguez-Morales, M. Augmented and Virtual Reality Evolution and Future Tendency. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010322

AMA Style

Muñoz-Saavedra L, Miró-Amarante L, Domínguez-Morales M. Augmented and Virtual Reality Evolution and Future Tendency. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(1):322. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010322

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muñoz-Saavedra, Luis, Lourdes Miró-Amarante, and Manuel Domínguez-Morales. 2020. "Augmented and Virtual Reality Evolution and Future Tendency" Applied Sciences 10, no. 1: 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010322

APA Style

Muñoz-Saavedra, L., Miró-Amarante, L., & Domínguez-Morales, M. (2020). Augmented and Virtual Reality Evolution and Future Tendency. Applied Sciences, 10(1), 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010322

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop