Source-linked AI summary
Beyond the 1D Reality-Virtuality Continuum: A 2D Framework for Seven Extended Reality Paradigms
Rajashekhar Vachiravelu Saminathan
TL;DR
The conventional 1D RV continuum does not fully represent XR paradigms that manipulate environmental information in different ways. This paper proposes a 2D framework for characterizing seven realities by real-virtual position and information addition or subtraction. Its qualitative analysis finds that the added dimension distinguishes paradigms such as AR and DR, while the framework remains limited in scope and validation.
Problem
The 1D RV continuum does not fully characterize XR paradigms that can add, suppress, or transform information despite similar real-virtual positions.
Source: §1 · p. 2Method
Results
The qualitative comparison finds that the seven realities differ both in physical-virtual content and in how they manipulate information, allowing AR and DR to be distinguished by addition versus suppression.
Source: §6.2 · p. 6, §7 · p. 7Takeaways & Limitations
The 2D representation provides a qualitative basis for positioning emerging XR paradigms beyond their location on the traditional continuum.
Source: §7 · p. 7
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
The Reality-Virtuality (RV) continuum helps in describing the relationship between physical and computer-generated environments. However, the increasing number of Extended Reality (XR) paradigms introduces new technologies. Their characteristics cannot be completely represented by a single real-virtual dimension. It can be noted that XR systems not only vary in their proportion of real and virtual content but also adds, suppresses, or transforms information available to the user. This work proposes a framework for characterizing seven XR realities, namely Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), Mixed Reality (MR), Augmented Virtuality (AV), Phenomenal Reality (PR), Annexing Reality (AnR), and Diminished Reality (DR). It uses a two-dimensional extension of the conventional 1D RV continuum. The first dimension helps in identification of the position of an XR technology between real and virtual environments. The second dimension captures information addition and subtraction. The proposed approach gives a qualitative basis for comparing existing and emerging XR paradigms within a unified XR framework.
1 Introduction
The conventional RV continuum does not capture how XR paradigms manipulate environmental information. This work proposes a two-dimensional framework for characterizing seven XR realities and qualitatively positioning them, including in earthquake-scenario implementations.
1 Introduction
- The 1D RV continuum cannot fully characterize XR systems because paradigms at similar real-virtual positions can transform environmental information differently.AR adds virtual information to the physical environment, while DR can suppress information already present.Source: §1 · p. 2
- The framework adds an information-manipulation dimension to the real-virtual axis, ranging from information addition to subtraction.The horizontal axis positions a technology between real and virtual environments.Source: §1 · p. 2
- The work proposes a two-dimensional Reality-Virtuality framework that captures real-virtual positioning and information addition or subtraction, qualitatively positions XR technologies, and remaps them in a one-dimensional RV continuum.The framework focuses on XR implementations developed for earthquake scenarios.Source: §1 · p. 2
2 Background and Motivation
The background describes the RV continuum and explains why a single real-virtual dimension is insufficient. The proposed second dimension represents how XR paradigms add or reduce environmental information.
2.1 The Reality-Virtuality Continuum
- The RV continuum positions systems between physical and computer-generated environments, providing an intuitive one-dimensional basis for describing XR.Milgram and Kishino positioned AR and AV between real and virtual environments.Source: §2.1 · p. 2
2.2 Beyond the Real-Virtual Dimension
- XR paradigms can add, remove, or transform displayed information, distinctions the conventional continuum does not represent.VR is mostly computer-generated, while AR adds virtual information, MR integrates real and virtual elements, AV embeds physical-world information in virtual environments, DR removes real-world information, AnR extends physical spaces through virtual content, and PR focuses on realism and experience.Source: §2.2 · p. 2
2.3 Motivation for a Two-Dimensional Representation
- The framework retains real-virtual positioning horizontally and represents increasing information addition upward and increasing subtraction downward.The authors identify differences in physical-virtual content, information manipulation, and integration between physical and virtual elements as reasons for adding the second dimension.Source: §2.3 · p. 2
3 Related Work
Related work establishes the RV continuum while documenting concerns that it does not capture the diversity of reality-based systems. Prior taxonomies and stakeholder research also motivate clearer distinctions among XR categories.
Related work
- Milgram and Kishino established the RV continuum for describing physical and computer-generated environments, including AR and AV between them.Skarbez et al. questioned treating mixed reality as a single continuous dimension [15], while later work highlighted multidimensional models.Source: §3 · pp. 2–3
- Prior work addressed removal of real-world objects with a directional, layer-based taxonomy and proposed a broader taxonomy of virtual, augmented, mixed, mediated, and multimediated realities [6].These approaches are relevant to DR and transformations beyond adding virtual information.Source: §3 · p. 3
- A stakeholder study found inconsistent interpretations of VR, AR, and MR made communication of required information difficult.Milman et al. contributed conceptual distinctions for identifying individual reality paradigms.Source: §3 · p. 3
4 Experimental Exploration of XR Realities in Earthquake Scenarios
The paper illustrates seven XR realities through earthquake-related scenarios, ranging from immersive experiences and evacuation guidance to robot operation, training, communication, and path finding.
4.1 Virtual Reality: Trapped in Debris Experience
- VR presents a trapped-in-debris experience in the CAVE-E virtual environment, where the user grasps a pancake.The environment is created in Unity and represents a post-earthquake building-collapse scenario.Source: §4.1 · p. 3
4.2 Augmented Reality: Evacuation based on QR Codes
- AR evacuation guidance uses QR codes at decision pathways, which users scan with a mobile application to obtain a route.The route is computed using the A-STAR algorithm.Source: §4.2 · p. 3
4.3 Mixed Reality: Controlling a Dual Soft Robot for Search Operations
- MR lets a user operate a dual soft manipulator and snake robot through a Meta Quest 3 heads-up display.The scene concerns robot-assisted search and rescue operations.Source: §4.3 · p. 3
4.4 Augmented Virtuality: Training for Using the Proposed Probe
- AV training turns QR-coded wooden boxes into virtual debris while operators insert physical probes and feel their feedback.The setup uses a camera view, and the authors note that the technique can be used because dusty debris is difficult to bring into laboratory environments.Source: §4.4 · p. 3
4.5 Diminished Reality: Reducing Visual Clutter on the Disaster Dashboards
- DR removes and inpaints clutter in a scene containing a robotic lizard, illustrating visual clutter reduction.The passage frames perceiving less as a way to decrease cognitive load.Source: §4.5 · p. 3
4.6 Phenomenal Reality: Communication of Robot Data Transfer Information
- PR depicts spherical and soft snake robots to convey their communication and interaction with a human operator.The example represents how an audience might feel immersed in a situation not present in front of them.Source: §4.6 · p. 3
4.7 Annexing Reality: Help in Path Finding of Robots in Debris
- AnR uses camera-captured crushed coloured paper as virtual debris, alongside a virtual snake robot that finds a path through it using A-STAR.Figure 2(c) identifies the crushed paper used for annexing debris.Source: §4.7 · p. 3, Figure 2 · p. 4
5 Re-Framing the One-Dimensional Reality-Virtuality Continuum
The section extends RV positioning into two dimensions, remaps the realities to a 1D continuum when needed, and groups them by shared characteristics.
5.1 Proposed Two-Dimensional Reality-Virtuality Framework
- The 2D framework places XR technologies horizontally between real and virtual environments and vertically by information addition or subtraction.The vertical direction distinguishes information augmentation from reduction.Source: §5.1 · p. 4
5.2 Obtaining an Updated One-Dimensional Reality-Virtuality Continuum
- The 2D realities can be remapped to a 1D RV continuum by moving them toward the horizontal axis.The reframed continuum also labels the proposed examples for the XR technologies.Source: §5.2 · p. 4
5.3 Grouping the Seven Realities
- VR and AV form the inner group, AnR the next set, AR and DR share an information-operation set, and MR and PR form the next envelope.The grouping uses shared characteristics and can accommodate future realities by matching their common nature to existing technologies.Source: §5.3 · p. 4
6 Preliminary Analysis
The section uses the author's qualitative experience to compare seven XR realities across environmental and informational characteristics, then positions them within the proposed framework.
6.1 Qualitative Cross-Paradigm Analysis of the Seven XR Realities
- The analysis compares the realities through their relation to physical environments, virtual content, interaction, perception, and environmental information.The authors prefer qualitative analysis because they could not readily find participants experienced with all seven realities.Source: §6.1 · pp. 4, 6, §6 · p. 4
6.2 Cross-Paradigm Comparison
- The qualitative comparison finds that the seven realities differ both in physical-versus-virtual content and in how environmental information is manipulated.VR and AV are mostly virtual but differ in their treatment of physical-world information.Source: §6.2 · p. 6
- AR adds information and DR suppresses it while retaining the physical environment as reference; MR integrates and supports interaction across physical and virtual entities.AnR extends or reinterprets physical objects and spaces through a virtual layer, while PR focuses on insights into how a phenomenon is perceived and communicated.Source: §6.2 · p. 6
- The conventional 1D real–virtual dimension alone is insufficient to characterize the seven techniques; the analysis uses both environmental relationship and information manipulation.Figure 4 presents the re-framed 1D continuum derived from the 2D framework.Source: §6.2 · p. 6, Figure 4 · p. 6
6.3 Qualitative Method of Positioning the 7 XR Realities
- The qualitative characterizations provide the basis for positioning the seven realities in 2D, with the figure showing their placement and grouping.The authors state that claims of exclusive category membership require a questionnaire and user study involving participants experienced with all seven techniques.Source: Figure 3 · p. 5, §6.3 · p. 6, Table 1 · p. 6
7 Discussion and Limitations
The discussion presents information manipulation as an added dimension that makes the RV framework more expressive, while noting limits in validation and scope.
7 Discussion and Limitations
- The 2D representation distinguishes realities by both physical–virtual content and information addition or removal, including AR versus DR.It also represents AnR through its combination of real–virtual positioning.Source: §7 · pp. 6–7
- The framework's generalizability across diverse populations is unestablished, and its vertical axis does not capture the semantic or cognitive consequences of information manipulation.The framework covers seven realities demonstrated in earthquake-scenario implementations; broader-domain properties may therefore be absent, and structured empirical validation is future work.Source: §7 · p. 7
8 Conclusions
The conclusion presents a 2D framework for seven XR paradigms and a route for mapping them back onto a reframed 1D continuum.
8 Conclusions
- The framework characterizes seven XR paradigms with a horizontal real–virtual position and a vertical dimension for information addition and subtraction.The authors identify quantitative validation with larger, more diverse participant groups as future work.Source: §8 · p. 7