related: indoor_climbing
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3749385.3749409
related: indoor_climbing
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3749385.3749409
abstract
new for me
- augmenting bouldering
- wall projection
- MR bouldering
- vibrotactile feedback
- is this related to yt-I’ve never felt this way before - $60 VR GLOVES!
- 3d plants
- interesting: virtual obstacle
- questions before deep drive:
- other HCI x bouldering projects
- how this project changing the topology of the wall virtually?
- how they set up their gears, how they implement this
- this seems fun but how they turn this project into academic outcome
highlights
1. intro
2.1 augmented bouldering
2.2 bouldering together
3. boulderplay
3.1 design
3.2 user study
- v3/v4 v7/v8 in vermin scales levels
- approval by institute’s ethic board
- interview everyone
- bouldering
- experiences with ar and vr
- given instruction before test
- halfway through experiment:
- 3 words describing emotions to blahblahblah
- following a common practice
- interview in depth about both experience from the experiment and comparing it to normal bouldering
- audio/video recorded both interview and play
4. results
4.1 dynamic changes resulting in dynamic challenges
- endurance
- constantly replan their route between playing
4.2 adapting the climbing style
4.3 challenge of climbing differently around virtual obstacles
- “Yeah, no touching. And even though there weren’t any sensors for my feet, I still felt like I had to avoid my feet, too, because of that visual.”
- The participants appeared to extend the rule of avoiding plants with their hands to their feet, despite their awareness that they did not receive feedback on their feet.
- participants lost some motivation cuz their visual fields are limited + etc. >> cheat
4.4 theme-gamified ar bouldering
The participants felt that using BoulderPlay had a steep learning curve, about which Aline commented: “Probably the only thing I would add is an AR tutorial.”
5. discussion
7. conclusion
created on: Tue Dec 02 2025