Immersive Ubiquitous Computing: Its Dynamics and Implications
New techniques of teaching, evaluating, and training are going beyond the realm of a standard classroom. Advancements have been developed in regards to Immersive Ubiquitous Environments. One of the more popularly known advances is Virtual Reality (VR), transitioning the field of gaming into a fully immersed first person experience. Despite one lasting success in an industry, difficulties still arise. In the four research articles, I discuss the difficulties of testing prototypes. Continuing is the breakdown of other technologies in other fields: what did this field need to improve? Is it effective, and most importantly, is it needed? In all of these aspects, it is important to also question the shift in social changes that may not be visible during implementation.
Functional and effective prototypes in testing is critical to the technology’s success. A case study was done by Tiago Abade et. al that evaluates the usage of Immersiveness Ubiquitous Computing Environments, where they measure the effectiveness of Desktop and Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) in sampling a virtual library. One of the main points by the authors is that there is a tension between the quality of results desired of the prototype and the need to make them closely related to the finished product. The study’s main purpose was not to evaluate the helpfulness of the virtual library, but to compare the learning outcome of each prototype and its effectiveness (Desktop versus CAVE). Simply put, the environment simulated a library at the University of Minho in Braga, Portugal. The low immersion setup was the Desktop setup, which had three monitors with only one running the simulation, with the typical keyboard and mouse. The high immersion involved the CAVE setup with three projections side-by-side with Anaglyph stereo, paired with the 3D glasses and Wiimote control. Twelve test subjects used the low immersion, while nine test subjects used high immersion, and after completing the tasks of the simulation, were given a questionnaire of their experience.
The results are as follows: “Overall there were no major significant differences in the results of the two conditions. This indicates that for the particular needs of the prototyping approach used, the added cost of deploying the prototypes in a CAVE environment does not seem to pay off (Abade et. al, 2015).” What does this imply? What methods of learning are truly beneficial? Can this potentially hinder learning outcomes? And what social factors are implied within this sphere of technology.
To further expand on Immersive Ubiquitous Environments, Pushpendra Singh et. al developed an immersive video environment to do rapid testing of a prototype, similar to the previous article in trying to find ways to achieve fast and accurate results. Their rationale includes saying how infrastructure of setting up sensors in outside environments takes too long versus their need for constant testing. They tested their immersive environment to a prototype built within ASK-IT, a European Union Framework 6 project that aims to enhance inclusion through the application of ambient intelligence. One goal of ASK-IT is to provide mobility impaired users with seamless location sensitive guidance and information as they arrive at a metro station, exit and navigate to a cultural location such as a museum, and enter the museum and view its exhibits (Singh et. al, 2009).
As the authors mention, the social and functional implications this presents is a point of access for disabled individuals. When developed and integrated, its function can integrate individuals with a sense of independence and agency. In addition, the research expands their ideals to emergency response systems. The argument is that it will provide quick imaging, incident evaluation, and consistent coordinates of the location. This provides a higher quality of rapid response and assessment while en route to the incident. However, with the complications of infrastructure, we see older locations and their need of preservation. In addition, it has to be a unanimous decision by peoples, communities, and sites to use this system that could potentially be used to harm. Is it possible to navigate the risk and reward that this type of system implies? Does it intrude on a sense of privacy? Or do we already see this type now, such as Google Earth?
Research done by Tsung-Yu Liu , Tan-Hsu Tan, and Yu-Ling Chu use ubiquitous environments in the field of education, introducing a system that would provide students on-site information at outdoor sites, of which is implemented at Guandu Nature Park in Taiwan. Taiwan recognizes outdoor learning provides enhanced learning, but struggles with the lack of expertise of the teachers on the site of choice, as well as a proper method of engagement. Overall, the addition of mobile learning adds to one’s daily life (Tsung-Yu Liu et al, 2009).
The EULER system is used as the primary interface for the student and teachers in the outdoor environment. It revolves around two subsystems: MOBILE, for the teacher, and m-Tools, for the students. MOBILE is a server that has all essentials of a virtual classroom, bulletin board, assignments, homeworks, forums, ect., and students use m-Tools in order to interact with the teacher’s setup as well as the outdoor environment. m-Tools is installed on a PDA, which can access the mobile database through the use of the RIFD reader This tag and scanner technology allows for the quick transfer of information (Tsung-Yu Liu et al, 2009).. In the experiment, fifth graders were split into a control group; answering the questions based on prior textbook knowledge, and the experiment with EULER. Based on their results on questionnaires, positive results were found in learning as well as the system interface.
With this Ubiquitous Outdoor Learning Environment, we see a full positive impact on not only students, but the possible integration in social spaces such as a park. It presents itself with ease, with the main technology as comparable to service on a cell phone. It creates a balance for the students and teacher to be in a new environment: constant movement, group learning, and hands-on approach. It gives enough balance of a classroom and the essence of a field trip. Here is an example of an approach and implementation of Ubiquitous Immersive Environments where its implications are largely positive in the field of education.
One of the more volatile arguments is the use of Immersive Environments in the medical field. With the advancements and creation of new technologies for the field, new training is needed. With the enrollment to the medical field being constant, optimizing training for both the student, resident, professor, and doctor would be desirable. As mentioned throughout this discussion, there is tension in the ability to test and provide accurate results, as well as its ability to permeate, especially considering a field with a long history of proven science. We have seen success with integration in the field of education, but the medical field implies much more: human-to-human interactions. To eliminate the human factor in the medical field can cause serious disconnects. Essentially, training with immersive simulations can take away the humanity and respect that is deserved of a patient. Working in a simulation is understood to be different from a human being. On the other hand, simulations allow for hands-on group learning depending on the topic. It also puts less risk on a human test subject. These are only some of the concerns involved with this topic.
To introduce the dynamic, research article titled “Teaching Mass Casualty Triage Skills Using Immersive Three-dimensional Virtual Reality” evaluates their students in reaching the learning objective. Using an immersive VR exercise with prior knowledge of casualty triage through an assigned podcast. After familiarizing themselves with the equipment and completing the tutorial, they were to assess the five casualties with various injuries in a dark room. Means of assessment was done by pose-and-gesture based command system: for example, the gesture of a right hand would provide the tool tray. Once they completed the assessments, they were automatically transported to the next scenario for seamless navigation. It was seen that the twenty four students scored >85% . Significant improvement of scores were seen from Scenario A to B, but not from Scenario B to C. The study noted the 26% improvement was clinically significant. The research concluded stating “that mass casualty triage can be effectively and efficiently taught to novice learners” (Vincent, MD, et.al).
The ability to simulate a drastic situation involving casualties without waiting for the unfortunate event is a powerful tool for the medical field. It allows for the keen observation by the teacher of the techniques and decisions made by the student. For the students especially, it puts hands-on learning where they thought they would never see it until later in their careers. However, the social aspect this takes away is heavily ingrained in the ethics and humanity of people. The virtual place cannot replace the senses involved with the situation. Arguably, going into the medical field, you should know that you signed up for potentially traumatizing situations. The feelings are different when seeing a human, bleeding, on the ground, the smell and atmosphere of the situation is something no one can prepare for until they immerse themselves for the first time. In terms of learning skill, it is very effective, but all that skill can be voided by the intense overload of senses in an incident.
Ubiquitous Immersive Environments and technologies of the like are growing novels of the world. They combine the developing technology into intuitive and invisible structures. They can provide ease in many industries, and not just life. However, gaps are seen in the process and implementation. Is it really necessary to initiate an immersive prototype? Are the results the same as current technologies? And what does these technologies mean for the social lives of people. Does it undermine or reconstruct what we know? And what can it take away in the interaction of people?
Sources:
Abade, Tiago, et al. “Immersiveness of ubiquitous computing environments prototypes: A case study.” International Conference on Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive Interactions. Springer, Cham, 2015.
Liu, Tsung-Yu, Tan-Hsu Tan, and Yu-Ling Chu. “Outdoor natural science learning with an RFID-supported immersive ubiquitous learning environment.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 12.4 (2009): 161–175.
Singh, Pushpendra, et al. “Rapid prototyping and evaluation of intelligent environments using immersive video.” MODIE (2006): 36.
Vincent, Dale S., et al. “Teaching mass casualty triage skills using immersive three‐dimensional virtual reality.” Academic Emergency Medicine 15.11 (2008): 1160–1165.
