5 Augmenting human’s cognition and reality
5.2 Augmented Reality as an instrument for augmenting the cognition
Augmented Reality (AR) is a technology that allows seeing objects in network-based surroundings superimposed on real world objects (Augmented Reality 2004). The difference between AR and VR (Virtual Reality) is that VR immerses user inside a virtual world that completely replaces a real one. In AR the situation is different: virtual and real can be seen in the same space and ideally couldn't be distinguished (Bonsor 2001). Augmented reality adds graphics, sounds, haptics and smell to the natural world as it exists.
Contemporary AR systems are able not only superimpose graphics over a real world in real-time, but also change those graphics to accommodate a user's head- and eye- movements, so that the graphics always fit the perspective. There are several areas where AR systems are used. They are collaborative work and design, medicine (e.g. surgery), education tools, games, robotics (for remote control and maintenance), architecture and interior design, military applications (battlefield AR systems – BARS) and some others.
There are three components that are needed for an AR system to work: head-mounted display (HMD), tracking system, and mobile computing power. Consideration of each of them separately leads to understanding that in practice it is quite difficult and even impossible to use such systems in supporting learning and human collaboration processes. The reasons are the following ones:
1. Need to wear displays. Advanced AR system offer its minimal-size approach like only eyeglasses (or even contact lenses), but its cost is so high that it seems to be impossible to use it. Moreover, there are no commercial products (at least now).
2. Mobile computing power: there is not enough computing power in available now wearable AR systems for
ONE PRACTICAL ALGORITHM OF CREATING TEACHING ONTOLOGIES
INTENTION, IMITATION, AND COMMON-SENSE IN NETWORK-BASED COLLABORATION 7 NETWORK-BASED EDUCATION 2005, 14TH– 17TH SEPTEMBER 2005, ROVANIEMI, FINLAND
4. Bulky hardware (if you use HMD, cameras, pocket PC, … it's difficult to pay attention only on what you want to do, but not on how to utilise all this stuff).
The idea is to extend the augmented reality concept in order to make it applicable for supporting people's collaboration through network-based environments. The aim is to create such kind of interface that follows the person (but not vice versa, when the person needs to reach the network-based environment in order to make the interaction possible) and acts as a facilitator in any kind of task.
There is a variety of ways of using AR in a natural way for such kind of purposes. Keeping away from displays and other wearable devices one can imagine the space with several special projectors that allow transforming any surface into a projected touch-screen. People can interact with the projected image by only touching the surface. Users can work together and looking on the wall or table or floor, or any surface they want. (Such kinds of devices are already commercially available, e.g. Everywhere Display (IBM research, 2004) by IBM).
Another way of bringing AR features to collaboration process is to support the way of working and learning based on user profiles represented in the form of Avatars (any kind of creature). Avatar features and representation can be adjusted by the user; can be dependent on the user location in the world and inside the physical working space. Such kind of user representation supports everybody's awareness about everyone who is "in process", i.e. about those who are "in flow" and can support you in your work, your cognitive processes.
Such kind of features allows every participant to know at every moment what is happening in a network-based environment even if she is not at her computer. People are immersed into the atmosphere of "everyone presence" that motivates participation and stimulate community spirit.
6 Conclusions
In previous investigations (Hyvönen et al. 2003a; Hyvönen et al. 2003b.), we have shown that intentions and emotions of virtual university students come across strongly and are easily interpreted even though the students are not face-to-face, only 'the minds meet'. This means that we do not subscribe to the view that body language is not used in the network-based learning although it cannot be seen. This kind of a 'meeting' is extremely bodily occasion, the affects of which to motivation and progression (or, interruption) of studies can be clearly observed. For the 'meeting of the minds', the students searched for a common context, which showed to be such as, for instance, the same kinds of personal trait - we talk here about shared emotions. We found very interesting the feature that also the kinds of 'negative trait' such as, for instance, envy, served for a 'bridge' in the 'meeting of the minds' (Hyvönen et al. 2003a;
Hyvönen et al. 2003b).
According to Chayko (2002), the same place of birth, for instance, is sufficient for the connective factor. This shows that the bridge for the meeting of the minds needs not to be relevant for the object of study nor in any ways 'current'.
Building up the 'bridge' is closely connected to the questions, to which we searched for the answers, in this article. In this respect, the meaning of common-sense as a contextual basis for collaboration and mutual understanding is significant, because as Forguson & Gopnik (1988) state, common-sense is an interconnected network of implicit beliefs about the world and our relations to it. We use common-sense everyday in teaching-studying-learning processes, for it is a common background in interpreting others as rational beings.
In this article, we have discussed neuro-biological explanation, especially the functioning of mirror neurons, which is extremely significant in teaching-studying-learning processes in network-based settings, because their function is not only the imitation of seen movements, but also the supplying of intentions, emotions, and social context from peer to peer. In order to speak meaningfully of objective likeness of humans' intentions, emotions or of common-sense, we need to form a compact conception of relations between mind, body, and the outside world including other bodies and minds. In this article, we take Dennett's, Auyang's, and Damasio's conceptions for granted: although all the people are not-alike and they think about different things, they have very similar mental infrastructures, they think in the same general ways, and their thinking shares the general characteristics and structures of the human mind. This enables people to empathise and even understand each other.
We find it relevant to discuss about augmented cognition and augmented reality because these conceptions allow the considerations of new possibilities for collaboration and interaction from a new and fruitful point of view. We admit that there are quite serious restrictions in utilising AR concept and technologies for the purposes of network-based collaboration, but the AR approach we proposed in this article can be used successfully for the facilitation of network-based interaction.
ONE PRACTICAL ALGORITHM OF CREATING TEACHING ONTOLOGIES
INTENTION, IMITATION, AND COMMON-SENSE IN NETWORK-BASED COLLABORATION 8 NETWORK-BASED EDUCATION 2005, 14TH– 17TH SEPTEMBER 2005, ROVANIEMI, FINLAND
In future, we’ll focus more closely on mechanisms on different levels. The first level is neural level where mirror neurons have an essential role. The second level is the level of persons, where we are interested in their interaction and in intra-personal experiences as well as in network-based settings. In addition, we'll carry on the research where we consider the significance of emotions in teaching-studying-learning processes (see Lehtonen et al. in print).
References
Aristotle (1984) The complete works of Aristotle. J. Barnes, ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Auyang, S. Y. (1998) Foundations of complex-system theories in economics, Evolutionary Biology, Statistical Physics.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Auyang, S.Y. (2000) Mind in everyday life and cognitive science. The MIT Press.
Bonsor, K. (2001) How augmented reality will work. How stuff works. Retrieved 10th December 2004 from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/augmented-reality.htm
Bruner, J. (1985) Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chayko, M. (2002) Connecting. How we form social bonds and communities in the internet age. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Damasio, A. (2000/1999a) Spinozaa etsimässä. Ilo, suru ja tuntevat aivot (K. Pietiläinen, Trans.). Helsinki: Terra Cognita.
Damasio, A. (2000/1999b) Tapahtumisen tunne. Miten tietoisuus syntyy (K. Pietiläinen, Trans.). Helsinki: Terra Cognita.
Damasio, A. (2001/1994) Descartesin virhe. Emootio, järki ja ihmisen aivot (K. Pietiläinen, Trans.). Helsinki: Terra Cognita.
Dennett, D. (1996) Kinds of minds. Towards an understanding of conscious. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Forguson, L & Gopnik, A. (1988) The ontogeny of common sense. In J.W. Astington, P.L. Harris and D. Olson (Eds.) Developing theories of mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gallese, V. & Goldman, A. (1998) Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2 , 493 – 501.
Garrison, D. R. (1993) Quality and Theory in Distance Education: Theoretical Consideration. In D. Keegan (Ed.) Theoretical Principles of Distance Education.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: a model and tool to access cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7 – 23.
Hung, D.W. & Der-Thang, C. (2001) Situated cognition, Vygotskyan thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: implications for the design of web based E-Learning. Educational Media International, 38(1).
Hyvönen, P., Lahti, J. & Marjomaa, E. (2003a) Embodied subjects and intentionality in virtual learning environments.
In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.) Proceedings of EdMedia 2003 [CD-ROM], Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advanced of Computing in Education, 2122 – 2129.
Hyvönen, P., Lahti, J., Marjomaa, E., Purma, J., Saariluoma, P. & Sajaniemi, J. (2003b) Quality Assurance in Connet.
The International Conference on Network Universities and E-learning: Model for a European Networked University and e-Learning, Valencia (Spain), 8-9 May, 2003. Editorial de la Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain, CD-ROM ISBN 84-9705-369-9, Session 2A. Available also at http://www.upv.es/menuconf/.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W. (2003) Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environment: a Review of the Research. In Computers in Human Behavior 19, 335 – 353.
Lehtonen, M, Hyvönen, P. & Ruokamo, H. (in print) Minkä ilotta opiskelee sen surutta unohtaa! Emotionaalisten
ONE PRACTICAL ALGORITHM OF CREATING TEACHING ONTOLOGIES
INTENTION, IMITATION, AND COMMON-SENSE IN NETWORK-BASED COLLABORATION 9 NETWORK-BASED EDUCATION 2005, 14TH– 17TH SEPTEMBER 2005, ROVANIEMI, FINLAND
Marjomaa, E. (2004). "How to use conceptual schemata in E-learning". Cognitive Systems, Special Issue on Learning, 6-2, 3 (double-issue) March 2004, pp. 205 – 211.
Motluk, A. (2001) Read my mind. New Scientist Magazine, 169, 2275, Pg. 22 – 26. Retrieved 9th February 2003 from WWW-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs182/ns/article.html
Nehaniv, C.L. & Dautenhahn, K. (2002) The correspondence problem in social learning: What does it mean for behaviors to “match“ anyway? Perspectives on Imitation from cognitive neuroscience to social science. Royaumont Abbey, France, 24-26 May 2002. Retrieved 10th February 2003 from
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/Psychology/imitation/posters
Ramachandran, V. S. (2000). Mirror neurons and imitation learning as the driving force behind “the great leap forward” in human evolution. Edge 69. Retrieved 10th February from
http://www.edge.org/documents/achieve/edge69.html
Rizzolatti, G & Arbib, M. (1998) Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences, 21, 188 – 194.
Salomon. G., Perkins, D. N. (1998) Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, Vol.
23.
Schmorrow, D. (2002) Augmented Cognition: Building Cognitively Aware Computational Systems. A speech at DARPATech 2002 Conference, Anaheim, Calif. Retrieved from 10th March 2004 from
http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/Proceedings/DARPATech2002/DDS_DARPATech2002_speech.pdf
Schmorrow, D. and Patrey, J. (2001) A speech in perceptive user interfaces workshop, Panel on Augmented Cognition.
Retrieved from http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/conferences/PUI/PUIWorkshop/PUI-2001/a6.pdf
Wertsch, J. (1985) Culture, communication, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wesson, K. (2001) What Is All This Talk Lately About "Mirror Neurons"? In the article "Brain Basics" for the Teaching Professional. Retrieved 12th February 2003
fromhttp://www.sciencemaster.com/columns/wesson/wesson_part_04.php
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978a) Mind in Society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978b) Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky: (1985) A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.) Culture, communication, and cognition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
INTRODUCING ICT IN HIGHER EDUCATION: 1 THE CASE OF SALAHADDIN/HAWLER UNIVERSITY
2005 - NETWORK-BASED EDUCATION 14th-17th SEPTEMBER 2005, ROVANIEMI, FINLAND 1