CubeMuseum AR: A Tangible Augmented Reality Interface for Cultural Heritage Learning and Museum Gifting
Abstract
Museum artifacts are the main way for visitors to experience and learn about cultural heritage. Augmented reality (AR) allows for high interactivity and is increasingly applied in museums to improve tourists’ experience and learning. It also supports the extension of museum experience to outside of the physical museum space, contributing to the visiting trajectory and takeaway experience. In this paper, we present our design of two tangible AR interfaces for cultural artifacts: Postcard AR and CubeMuseum AR, followed by three user studies that evaluate and optimize the design. In Study 1, we conducted a within-subjects study (N = 24) that compares the two AR interfaces with a baseline condition (Leaflet). Our results demonstrate the positive effects of tangible AR interfaces on users’ motivation and engagement in learning cultural heritage. In Study 2, we further explored how to optimize CubeMuseum AR by adopting a user-centered design approach. Through the analysis of expert interviews (N = 7) and an online survey (N = 207), the results specify a series of requirements and design guidelines for tangible AR interfaces to be used as a learning tool and a hybrid gift. Based on the findings, the design of the CubeMuseum AR was optimized and evaluated in Study 3. A between-subjects user study was conducted (N = 32) to compare the optimized design with the initial design. The results verified the positive effects of gamified tangible AR interfaces on users’ motivation, engagement,…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Although several studies mention that immersive technologies enhance motivation for learning about cultural and natural heritage, very few works consider co-creation and information adaptation to improve user motivation.
“Although several studies [13,35,42] mention that the use of immersive technologies enhances the level of motivation for learning about cultural and natural heritage, features such as co-creation and information adaptation are aspects that very few works consider improving user motivation [15,[43][44][45].”
From Motiv-ARCHE: co-creation of augmented reality educational content to motivate cultural and natural heritage learning (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
Cites
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666 · cited 3× · see citing works
“We measured them using the Intrinsic Motivation Instrument (IMI) (Ryan, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2018), Museum Experience Scale (MES) and Multimedia Guide Scale (MMGS) (Othman et al., 2011), and an Artifact Information Test (AIT).”
BackgroundMethodExperimentation in Software Engineering
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2012) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2 · Cited by 4,460 · see citing works
Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction
Dourish, P. (2001) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/7221.001.0001 · Cited by 1,866 · see citing works
A Survey of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality for Cultural Heritage
Bekele, M. K., Pierdicca, R., Frontoni, E., Malinverni, E. S., & Gain, J. (2018) · Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage · doi:10.1145/3145534 · Cited by 1,147 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Bekele et al. (2018) argued that the full potential of TAR interface allows users to view the augmented information and interact with the augmented view through the physical object.”
BackgroundUsing Tangible Smart Replicas as Controls for an Interactive Museum Exhibition
Marshall, M. T., Dulake, N., Ciolfi, L., Duranti, D., Kockelkorn, H., & Petrelli, D. (2016) · Proceedings of the TEI '16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction · doi:10.1145/2839462.2839493 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Cognitive Load Theory in Computing Education Research: A Review
Duran, R., Zavgorodniaia, A., & Sorva, J. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3483843 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vargas, J. C. G., Fabregat, R., Carrillo-Ramos, A., & Jové, T. (2025) · Discover Applied Sciences · doi:10.1007/s42452-025-07842-0 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Xu, N., Li, Y., Wei, X., Xie, L., Yu, L., & Liang, H.-N.
- Affiliations
- Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Yue
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2023-02-06
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1409-1437
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W4319298180
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 5
- FWCI
- 6.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62207022)
- Natural Science Foundation of the Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions of China (22KJB520038)
- Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (SURF-2021045, RDF-20-02-47 and TDF20/21-R22-142)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Museology › Museums and Cultural Heritage
- Keywords
- tangible augmented reality, heritage education, gamification, museum objects, user-centered design, design guidelines, museum visitor experience
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
