pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09241 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-10 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

LandSAR: Visceralizing Landslide Data for Enhanced Situational Awareness in Immersive Analytics

Wong Kam-Kwai , Yi-Lin Ye , Wai Tong , Haobo Li , Kentaro Takahira , Aastha Bhatta , Sunil Poudyal , Charles Wang Wai Ng
show 2 more authors
Huamin Qu Leni Yang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords landslide analysisimmersive analyticssituational awareness3D printinggesture interactiontangible interfacessimulation visualizationvisceralization
0
0 comments X

The pith

LandSAR links landslide simulations to 3D-printed terrain models and gestures to raise situational awareness.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

LandSAR is an immersive analytics system built to help experts make sense of complex landslide data that is otherwise hard to interpret from numbers alone. It runs real-time simulations of landslide movement, prevention measures, and climate effects, then ties those simulations to physical 3D-printed terrain models that users can touch and explore with hand gestures. The approach aims to close the gap between abstract computational results and the physical reality of the ground. Expert interviews and workshops indicate that this combination increases engagement and improves users' situational awareness of risks and options.

Core claim

LandSAR visceralizes landslide data by integrating real-time simulations of dynamics, prevention strategies, and climate impacts with 3D-printed tangible terrain models that provide haptic feedback and support gesture-based multi-perspective what-if exploration, which expert evaluations show improves situational awareness and engagement.

What carries the argument

The integration of real-time simulations with 3D-printed terrain models as tangible interfaces for haptic feedback and gesture interaction.

If this is right

  • Analysts can explore prevention strategies and climate impacts through intuitive physical interaction.
  • Multi-perspective what-if analyses become more accessible for understanding dynamic landslide processes.
  • Tangible interfaces improve geographical perception and reduce the cognitive gap with real terrain.
  • Expert sessions show higher engagement levels during data analysis sessions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same tangible-simulation pattern could extend to flood or earthquake modeling where spatial intuition matters.
  • Adding quantitative performance measures would give stronger evidence than expert opinion alone.
  • Producing accurate 3D prints for many different sites may limit practical scaling.

Load-bearing premise

Qualitative feedback from expert interviews and workshops is enough to establish that adding 3D-printed models and gestures produces measurable gains in situational awareness.

What would settle it

A controlled user study comparing LandSAR against standard screen-based visualizations on standardized situational awareness metrics or task accuracy in predicting landslide outcomes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09241 by Aastha Bhatta, Charles Wang Wai Ng, Haobo Li, Huamin Qu, Kentaro Takahira, Leni Yang, Sunil Poudyal, Wai Tong, Wong Kam-Kwai, Yi-Lin Ye.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: LandSAR situates visualizations of landslides on tangible terrain models. It enhances situational awareness during landslide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration for the main components in landslide risk. Rainfall, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The system overview of LandSAR highlights the integration be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The situated visualization of LandSAR provides historical and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Self-reported baseline situational awareness for landslide. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The setting of workshop sessions. (A) Modifying the position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) results in rating Land [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Situation Awareness Rating Technique (SART) [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Landslides pose a significant threat to public safety, but their dynamic processes are difficult to analyze from post-event observation alone. Computational simulation is therefore essential, but it generates vast, abstract datasets that create a cognitive gap between the analyst and the real-world, physical terrain. While Immersive Analytics (IA) begins to bridge this gap by visualizing data in 3D, we explore how these systems evolve beyond abstract data and integrate data visceralization to enhance Situational Awareness (SA). We present LandSAR, an immersive analytics system that enhances SA for landslide analysis by visceralizing landslide data through integrated simulations and visualizations. LandSAR supports real-time simulations of landslide dynamics, prevention strategies, and climate impacts, enabling multi-perspective what-if analyses. The system uses 3D-printed terrain models as tangible interfaces to facilitate haptic feedback and enable gesture-based exploration, allowing for intuitive geographical perception. Expert interviews and workshops demonstrate that LandSAR effectively improves SA and engagement.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents LandSAR, an immersive analytics system for landslide data analysis that integrates real-time simulations of dynamics, prevention strategies, and climate impacts with 3D-printed terrain models serving as tangible interfaces and gesture-based interaction. The central claim is that this visceralization approach enhances situational awareness (SA) and engagement, as demonstrated through expert interviews and workshops.

Significance. If the evaluation evidence holds, the work contributes to immersive analytics and human-computer interaction by providing a concrete implementation of data visceralization that combines computational simulations with physical tangibles for geospatial disaster analysis. This could inform designs for other environmental monitoring applications where bridging abstract data and physical terrain perception is critical. The support for multi-perspective what-if analyses adds practical relevance for risk assessment.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: The claim that 'expert interviews and workshops demonstrate that LandSAR effectively improves SA and engagement' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet the manuscript provides no details on study design, including number of participants, their selection/expertise criteria, interview protocol, use of any standardized SA instruments (e.g., SAGAT or SART), control conditions, pre/post measures, or qualitative coding method. This prevents verification that reported gains are attributable to the specific integration of simulations, 3D-printed models, and gestures rather than novelty effects.
  2. [System description] System description (likely §3 or §4): While the integration of real-time simulations with tangible 3D-printed interfaces is described, there is no ablation or comparative analysis showing that the visceralization components produce SA gains beyond standard 3D visualizations or non-tangible immersive setups, leaving the mechanism's unique contribution unisolated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: The term 'visceralizing' is used without a precise definition or reference to prior literature on visceralization in IA, which could improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the concept.
  2. [Figures] Figures: Captions for system overview figures could explicitly label the gesture interaction zones and simulation output overlays to aid reproducibility of the described interface.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: The claim that 'expert interviews and workshops demonstrate that LandSAR effectively improves SA and engagement' is load-bearing for the paper's contribution, yet the manuscript provides no details on study design, including number of participants, their selection/expertise criteria, interview protocol, use of any standardized SA instruments (e.g., SAGAT or SART), control conditions, pre/post measures, or qualitative coding method. This prevents verification that reported gains are attributable to the specific integration of simulations, 3D-printed models, and gestures rather than novelty effects.

    Authors: We agree that the evaluation section requires more detailed reporting to allow readers to assess the validity of our claims. In the revised manuscript, we will expand this section to describe the study design, including the number and expertise of participants, the interview and workshop protocols, the qualitative coding methods employed, and any measures taken. We will also explicitly address the absence of standardized instruments such as SAGAT or SART, control conditions, and pre/post measures, noting that the evaluation was exploratory and qualitative in nature. Additionally, we will discuss the potential influence of novelty effects as a limitation. This will help clarify that the reported improvements in SA and engagement are based on expert feedback but may benefit from more rigorous future validation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [System description] System description (likely §3 or §4): While the integration of real-time simulations with tangible 3D-printed interfaces is described, there is no ablation or comparative analysis showing that the visceralization components produce SA gains beyond standard 3D visualizations or non-tangible immersive setups, leaving the mechanism's unique contribution unisolated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the paper would be strengthened by an ablation study or comparative analysis to isolate the effects of the visceralization components. However, as this work presents an integrated prototype system, we did not conduct such comparative evaluations in the current study. In the revised manuscript, we will add a discussion on the design rationale for combining simulations, visualizations, and tangible interfaces, drawing on the expert feedback to highlight perceived benefits. We will also include the lack of ablation analysis as a limitation and propose it as an avenue for future work. We believe the contribution lies in the holistic system for landslide analysis, but agree that isolating components would provide additional insight. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: descriptive system presentation with qualitative evaluation only

full rationale

The paper describes the design and implementation of LandSAR (real-time simulations, 3D-printed terrain, gesture interaction) and reports that expert interviews and workshops demonstrate improved SA and engagement. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear. The central claim is supported by qualitative feedback rather than any reduction to self-defined inputs or self-citations. This matches the default non-circular case for a systems paper without mathematical claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an applied HCI system-building paper with no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or scientific axioms; the contribution is the implemented system itself rather than any postulated entities or equations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5505 in / 1181 out tokens · 29994 ms · 2026-05-10T17:43:02.850705+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Alonso et al

    L. Alonso et al. CityScope: A Data-Driven Interactive Simulation Tool for Urban Design. Use Case V olpe. InUnifying Themes in Complex Systems IX, pp. 253–261. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-319-96661-8_272, 3

    2018

  2. [3]

    L. W. Barsalou. Grounded Cognition.Annual Review of Psychology, 59(V olume 59, 2008):617–645, 2008. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006 .0936392

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006 2008

  3. [4]

    B. Bell, T. Höllerer, and S. Feiner. An Annotated Situation-Awareness Aid for Augmented Reality. InProc. UIST, p. 213–216. ACM, NY , 2002. doi:10.1145/571985.5720172

    work page doi:10.1145/571985.5720172 2002

  4. [5]

    Bladin et al

    K. Bladin et al. Globe Browsing: Contextualized Spatio-Temporal Plane- tary Surface Visualization.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Com- puter Graphics, 24(1):802–811, 2018. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2017.27439583

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2017.27439583 2018

  5. [6]

    Bosch et al

    H. Bosch et al. ScatterBlogs2: Real-Time Monitoring of Microblog Mes- sages through User-Guided Filtering.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2022–2031, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2013 .1862

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013 2022

  6. [7]

    Bressa, H

    N. Bressa, H. Korsgaard, A. Tabard, S. Houben, and J. Vermeulen. What’s the Situation with Situated Visualization? A Survey and Perspectives on Situatedness.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):107–117, 2022. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2021.31148353

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021.31148353 2022

  7. [8]

    In: Proceed- ings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    W. Büschel, A. Lehmann, and R. Dachselt. MIRIA: A Mixed Reality Toolkit for the In-Situ Visualization and Analysis of Spatio-Temporal Interaction Data. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2021. doi: 10.1145/3411764. 34456511, 2

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764 2021

  8. [9]

    Chandler et al

    T. Chandler et al. Immersive Analytics. In2015 Big Data Visual Analytics (BDVA), pp. 1–8, 2015. doi:10.1109/BDVA.2015.73142961

    work page doi:10.1109/bdva.2015.73142961 2015

  9. [10]

    Chu et al

    X. Chu et al. TIVEE: Visual Exploration and Explanation of Badminton Tactics in Immersive Visualizations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):118–128, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021. 31148613

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021 2022

  10. [11]

    Clarinval, A

    A. Clarinval, A. Simonofski, B. Vanderose, and B. Dumas. Public Displays and Citizen Participation: a Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda.Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(1):1– 35, Jan 2021. doi:10.1108/TG-12-2019-01272

    work page doi:10.1108/tg-12-2019-01272 2021

  11. [12]

    Coffey, N

    D. Coffey, N. Malbraaten, T. B. Le, I. Borazjani, F. Sotiropoulos, A. G. Erd- man, and D. F. Keefe. Interactive Slice WIM: Navigating and Interrogating V olume Data Sets Using a Multisurface, Multitouch VR Interface.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(10):1614–1626,

  12. [13]

    doi:10.1109/TVCG.2011.2833

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2011.2833 2011

  13. [14]

    Cordeil, B

    M. Cordeil, B. Bach, A. Cunningham, B. Montoya, R. T. Smith, B. H. Thomas, and T. Dwyer. Embodied Axes: Tangible, Actuated Interaction for 3D Augmented Reality Data Spaces. InProc. CHI, p. 1–12. ACM, NY ,

  14. [15]

    doi:10.1145/3313831.33766133

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.33766133

  15. [16]

    Cordeil, B

    M. Cordeil, B. Bach, Y . Li, E. Wilson, and T. Dwyer. Design space for spatio-data coordination: Tangible interaction devices for immersive information visualisation. InProc. PacificVis, pp. 46–50. IEEE, Los Alamitos, 2017. doi:10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2017.80315783

    work page doi:10.1109/pacificvis.2017.80315783 2017

  16. [17]

    F. Dai, C. Lee, and Y . Ngai. Landslide Risk Assessment and Management: an Overview.Engineering Geology, 64(1):65–87, 2002. doi: 10.1016/ S0013-7952(01)00093-X1

    2002

  17. [18]

    Danyluk, B

    K. Danyluk, B. Ens, B. Jenny, and W. Willett. A Design Space Exploration of Worlds in Miniature. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2021. doi: 10.1145/ 3411764.34450983, 6

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [19]

    M. R. Endsley. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dy- namic Systems.Human Factors, 37(1):32–64, 1995. doi: 10.1518/ 0018720957790495431, 2

    1995

  19. [20]

    Ens et al

    B. Ens et al. Grand Challenges in Immersive Analytics. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2021. doi:10.1145/3411764.34468662

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.34468662 2021

  20. [22]

    Ens et al

    B. Ens et al. Immersive Analytics 2.0: Spatial and Embodied Sensemaking. InProc. CHI EA. ACM, NY , 2022. doi:10.1145/3491101.35037262, 3

    work page doi:10.1145/3491101.35037262 2022

  21. [23]

    Everitt and J

    A. Everitt and J. Alexander. PolySurface: A Design Approach for Rapid Prototyping of Shape-Changing Displays Using Semi-Solid Surfaces. In Proc. DIS, p. 1283–1294. ACM, NY , 2017. doi:10.1145/3064663.3064677 9

    work page doi:10.1145/3064663.3064677 2017

  22. [24]

    A. R. Fender and C. Holz. Causality-Preserving Asynchronous Reality. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2022. doi:10.1145/3491102.35018362

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.35018362 2022

  23. [25]

    T. Feng, J. Yang, M.-C. Eppes, Z. Yang, and F. Moser. EVis: Visually Analyzing Environmentally Driven Events.IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):912–921, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2021.31148673

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg 2022

  24. [26]

    J. A. W. Filho, W. Stuerzlinger, and L. Nedel. Evaluating an Immersive Space-Time Cube Geovisualization for Intuitive Trajectory Data Explo- ration.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):514–524, 2020. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2019.29344151, 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.29344151 2020

  25. [27]

    Fleck, A

    P. Fleck, A. S. Calepso, S. Hubenschmid, M. Sedlmair, and D. Schmal- stieg. RagRug: A Toolkit for Situated Analytics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(7):3281–3297, 2023. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2022.31570583

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [28]

    Fonnet and Y

    A. Fonnet and Y . Prié. Survey of Immersive Analytics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(3):2101–2122, 2021. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2019.29290332

    work page arXiv 2021

  27. [29]

    Fröhler et al

    B. Fröhler et al. A Survey on Cross-Virtuality Analytics.Computer Graphics Forum, 41(1):465–494, 2022. doi:10.1111/cgf.144472

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.144472 2022

  28. [30]

    Genay, M

    A. Genay, M. J. Neylan, W. Laird, T. Romanis, K. Szetey, A. E. Richards, B. Jenny, and T. Chandler. From Diagrams to Experience: Data Visceral- isation of Ecosystem State-and-Transition Models in Virtual Reality. In Proc. DIS, p. 2034–2046. ACM, NY , 2025. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735774 2

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735774 2034

  29. [31]

    Newbury, K

    Z. Ghaemi, U. Engelke, B. Ens, and B. Jenny. Proxemic maps for im- mersive visualization.Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 49(3):205–219, 2022. doi:10.1080/15230406.2021.20139462

    work page doi:10.1080/15230406.2021.20139462 2022

  30. [32]

    Herman, C

    B. Herman, C. D. Jackson, and D. F. Keefe. Touching the Ground: Evalu- ating the Effectiveness of Data Physicalizations for Spatial Data Analy- sis Tasks.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):875–885, 2025. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2024.34563773, 7

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.34563773 2025

  31. [33]

    Herman, M

    B. Herman, M. Omdal, S. Zeller, C. A. Richter, F. Samsel, G. Abram, and D. F. Keefe. Multi-Touch Querying on Data Physicalizations in Immersive AR.Proc. HCI, 5(ISS), nov 2021. doi:10.1145/34885422, 3

    work page doi:10.1145/34885422 2021

  32. [34]

    Hull and W

    C. Hull and W. Willett. Building with Data: Architectural Models as Inspiration for Data Physicalization. InProc. CHI, p. 1217–1264. ACM, NY , 2017. doi:10.1145/3025453.30258503

    work page doi:10.1145/3025453.30258503 2017

  33. [35]

    Hungr, S

    O. Hungr, S. Leroueil, and L. Picarelli. The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update.Landslides, 11(2):167–194, Apr 2014. doi: 10. 1007/s10346-013-0436-y3

    2014

  34. [36]

    Hutchinson et al

    H. Hutchinson et al. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. InProc. CHI, p. 17–24. ACM, NY , 2003. doi: 10.1145/642611. 6426164

    work page doi:10.1145/642611 2003

  35. [37]

    Jansen, P

    Y . Jansen, P. Dragicevic, P. Isenberg, J. Alexander, A. Karnik, J. Kildal, S. Subramanian, and K. Hornbæk. Opportunities and Challenges for Data Physicalization. InProc. CHI, p. 3227–3236. ACM, NY , 2015. doi: 10. 1145/2702123.27021802

    work page arXiv 2015

  36. [38]

    Höllt, N

    M. Kraus et al. Immersive Analytics with Abstract 3D Visualizations: A Survey.Computer Graphics Forum, 41(1):201–229, 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf .144302

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf 2022

  37. [39]

    J. S. H. Kwan. Supplementary technical guidance on design of rigid debris- resisting barriers. Technical Note TN 2/2012, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering and Development Department, HKSAR, 2012. 6

    2012

  38. [40]

    B. Lee, D. Brown, B. Lee, C. Hurter, S. Drucker, and T. Dwyer. Data Visceralization: Enabling Deeper Understanding of Data Using Virtual Reality.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1095–1105, 2021. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.30304352, 4

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020.30304352 2021

  39. [41]

    B. Lee, M. Cordeil, A. Prouzeau, B. Jenny, and T. Dwyer. A Design Space For Data Visualisation Transformations Between 2D And 3D In Mixed-Reality Environments. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2022. doi: 10. 1145/3491102.35018593

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [42]

    H. Li, W. Kam-Kwai, Y . Luo, J. Chen, C. Liu, Y . Zhang, A. K. H. Lau, H. Qu, and D. Liu. Save It for the “Hot” Day: An LLM-Empowered Visual Analytics System for Heat Risk Management.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(10):8928–8943, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.35866892

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.35866892 2025

  41. [43]

    T. Lu, Q. Zhu, T. Ma, W. Kam-Kwai, A. Xie, A. Endert, and Y . Yang. Ego vs. Exo and Active vs. Passive: Investigating the Individual and Combined Effects of Viewpoint and Navigation on Spatial Immersion and Understanding in Immersive Storytelling. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2025. doi:10.1145/3706598.37138492

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.37138492 2025

  42. [44]

    G. C. Millar, P. Tabrizian, A. Petrasova, V . Petras, B. Harmon, H. Mitasova, and R. K. Meentemeyer. Tangible Landscape: A Hands-on Method for Teaching Terrain Analysis. InProc. CHI, p. 1–12. ACM, NY , 2018. doi: 10.1145/3173574.31739543

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.31739543 2018

  43. [45]

    A. V . Moere and D. Hill. Designing for the Situated and Public Visualiza- tion of Urban Data.Journal of Urban Technology, 19(2):25–46, 2012. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2012.6980652

    work page doi:10.1080/10630732.2012.6980652 2012

  44. [46]

    Morais, G

    L. Morais, G. Panagiotidou, S. Hayes, T. Losev, R. Noonan, and U. Hin- richs. From Exploration to End of Life: Unpacking Sustainability in Physicalization Practices. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2024. doi: 10.1145/ 3613904.36422483

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [47]

    Myhre et al

    G. Myhre et al. Frequency of Extreme Precipitation Increases Exten- sively with Event Rareness under Global Warming.Scientific Reports, 9(1):16063, Nov 2019. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52277-41

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52277-41 2019

  46. [48]

    Newbury, K

    R. Newbury, K. A. Satriadi, J. Bolton, J. Liu, M. Cordeil, A. Prouzeau, and B. Jenny. Embodied Gesture Interaction for Immersive Maps.Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 48(5):417–431, 2021. doi: 10.1080/ 15230406.2021.19294922

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [49]

    C. W. W. Ng, C. E. Choi, H. Liu, S. Poudyal, and J. S. H. Kwan.Design Recommendations for Single and Dual Debris Flow Barriers with and Without Basal Clearance, pp. 33–53. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-60196-6_23, 6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-60196-6_23 2021

  48. [50]

    C. W. W. Ng, B. Yang, Z. Liu, J. Kwan, and L. Chen. Spatiotemporal Mod- elling of Rainfall-induced Landslides using Machine Learning.Landslides, 18:2499–2514, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10346-021-01662-03, 5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10346-021-01662-03 2021

  49. [51]

    Postert, A

    P. Postert, A. E. M. Wolf, and J. Schiewe. Integrating Visualization and Interaction Tools for Enhancing Collaboration in Different Public Participation Settings.ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 11(3):156, 2022. doi:10.3390/ijgi110301562

    work page doi:10.3390/ijgi110301562 2022

  50. [52]

    Quinto Lima, G

    S. Quinto Lima, G. Buraglia, W. Kam-Kwai, and J. Roberts. Data Bias Recognition in Museum Settings: Framework Development and Contribut- ing Factors. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3714092 2

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714092 2025

  51. [53]

    Reipschläger and R

    P. Reipschläger and R. Dachselt. DesignAR: Immersive 3D-Modeling Combining Augmented Reality with Interactive Displays. InProc. ISS, p. 29–41. ACM, NY , 2019. doi:10.1145/3343055.33597182

    work page doi:10.1145/3343055.33597182 2019

  52. [54]

    J. S. Roo and M. Hachet. One Reality: Augmenting How the Physical World is Experienced by Combining Multiple Mixed Reality Modalities. InProc. UIST, p. 787–795. ACM, NY , 2017. doi:10.1145/3126594.3126638 3

    work page doi:10.1145/3126594.3126638 2017

  53. [55]

    E. B.-N. Sanders and P. J. Stappers. Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: Three Approaches to Making in Codesigning.CoDesign, 10(1):5–14,

  54. [56]

    doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.8881833

    work page doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.8881833 2014

  55. [57]

    K. A. Satriadi, A. Cunningham, R. T. Smith, T. Dwyer, A. Drogemuller, and B. H. Thomas. ProxSituated Visualization: An Extended Model of Situated Visualization using Proxies for Physical Referents. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , USA, 2023. doi:10.1145/3544548.35809522, 3

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.35809522 2023

  56. [58]

    K. A. Satriadi, B. Ens, M. Cordeil, B. Jenny, T. Czauderna, and W. Willett. Augmented Reality Map Navigation with Freehand Gestures. InProc. VR, pp. 593–603. IEEE, Los Alamitos, 2019. doi:10.1109/VR.2019.87983404

    work page doi:10.1109/vr.2019.87983404 2019

  57. [59]

    K. A. Satriadi et al. Augmented Scale Models: Presenting Multivariate Data Around Physical Scale Models in Augmented Reality. InProc. ISMAR, pp. 54–63. IEEE, Los Alamitos, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ISMAR55827. 2022.000193

    work page doi:10.1109/ismar55827 2022

  58. [60]

    K. A. Satriadi et al. Tangible Globes for Data Visualisation in Augmented Reality. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2022. doi:10.1145/3491102.35177153

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.35177153 2022

  59. [61]

    L. S. Snyder, Y .-S. Lin, M. Karimzadeh, D. Goldwasser, and D. S. Ebert. Interactive Learning for Identifying Relevant Tweets to Support Real-time Situational Awareness.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):558–568, 2020. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2019.29346142

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.29346142 2020

  60. [62]

    Stokes et al

    A. Stokes et al. Ecological Mitigation of Hillslope Instability: Ten Key Issues Facing Researchers and Practitioners.Plant and Soil, 377:1–23,

  61. [63]

    doi:10.1007/s11104-014-2044-61, 3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11104-014-2044-61 2044

  62. [64]

    Takahira, W

    K. Takahira, W. Kam-Kwai, L. Yang, X. Xu, T. Fujiwara, and H. Qu. TangibleNet: Synchronous Network Data Storytelling through Tangible Interactions in Augmented Reality. InProc. CHI. ACM, NY , 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.37142653

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.37142653 2025

  63. [65]

    R. Taylor. Situational Awareness Rating Technique (Sart): The Develop- ment of a Tool for Aircrew Systems Design. InSituational Awareness, pp. 111–128. Routledge, London, Jul 2017. doi: 10.4324/9781315087924-8 7, 8

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315087924-8 2017

  64. [66]

    Temma, K

    R. Temma, K. Takashima, K. Fujita, K. Sueda, and Y . Kitamura. Third- Person Piloting: Increasing Situational Awareness Using a Spatially Cou- pled Second Drone. InProc. UIST, p. 507–519. ACM, NY , 2019. doi: 10. 1145/3332165.33479534

    work page arXiv 2019

  65. [67]

    W. Tong, Z. Chen, M. Xia, L. Y .-H. Lo, L. Yuan, B. Bach, and H. Qu. Exploring Interactions with Printed Data Visualizations in Augmented Reality.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):418–428, 2023. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2022.32093863

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.32093863 2023

  66. [68]

    W. Tong, H. Li, M. Xia, W. Kam-Kwai, T.-C. Pong, H. Qu, and Y . Yang. Exploring Spatial Hybrid User Interface for Visual Sensemaking.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(10):7062–7077,

  67. [69]

    doi:10.1109/TVCG.2025.35387713

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2025.35387713 2025

  68. [70]

    W. Tong, M. Xia, W. Kam-Kwai, D. A. Bowman, T.-C. Pong, H. Qu, and Y . Yang. Towards an Understanding of Distributed Asymmetric Collaborative Visualization on Problem-solving. In2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 387–397, 2023. doi: 10. 1109/VR55154.2023.000543

    work page arXiv 2023

  69. [71]

    M. Tory, A. Kirkpatrick, M. Atkins, and T. Moller. Visualization Task Performance with 2D, 3D, and Combination Displays.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(1):2–13, 2006. doi: 10.1109/ TVCG.2006.172

    2006

  70. [72]

    V olkwein

    A. V olkwein. Flexible Debris Flow Barriers: Design and Application. WSL Berichte 18, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland, 2014. 6

    2014

  71. [73]

    In: IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)

    M. Whitlock, S. Smart, and D. A. Szafir. Graphical Perception for Immer- sive Analytics. InProc. VR, pp. 616–625. IEEE, Los Alamitos, 2020. doi: 10.1109/VR46266.2020.000847

    work page doi:10.1109/vr46266.2020.000847 2020

  72. [74]

    Whitlock, K

    M. Whitlock, K. Wu, and D. A. Szafir. Designing for Mobile and Immer- sive Visual Analytics in the Field.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):503–513, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2019. 29342822, 4, 6

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019 2020

  73. [75]

    Willett et al

    W. Willett et al. Perception! Immersion! Empowerment! Superpowers as Inspiration for Visualization.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):22–32, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114844 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021.3114844 2022

  74. [76]

    Willett, Y

    W. Willett, Y . Jansen, and P. Dragicevic. Embedded Data Representations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1):461– 470, 2017. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2016.25986083

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2016.25986083 2017

  75. [77]

    Woodward and J

    J. Woodward and J. Ruiz. Analytic Review of Using Augmented Reality for Situational Awareness.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Com- puter Graphics, 29(4):2166–2183, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3141585 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3141585 2023

  76. [78]

    Yang and L

    L. Yang and L. Giovannangeli. Augmented Reality-based Data Storytelling for Citizen Participation in Urban Planning. InIEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (Poster), 2025. 2

    2025

  77. [79]

    Y . Yang, M. Cordeil, J. Beyer, T. Dwyer, K. Marriott, and H. Pfis- ter. Embodied Navigation in Immersive Abstract Data Visualization: Is Overview+Detail or Zooming Better for 3D Scatterplots?IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1214–1224, 2021. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.30304276

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020.30304276 2021

  78. [80]

    Y . Yang, T. Dwyer, K. Marriott, B. Jenny, and S. Goodwin. Tilt Map: Interactive Transitions Between Choropleth Map, Prism Map and Bar Chart in Immersive Environments.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(12):4507–4519, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020 .30041372

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020 2021

  79. [81]

    S. Ye, Z. Chen, X. Chu, Y . Wang, S. Fu, L. Shen, K. Zhou, and Y . Wu. ShuttleSpace: Exploring and Analyzing Movement Trajectory in Immer- sive Visualization.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):860–869, 2021. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.30303923

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020.30303923 2021

  80. [82]

    Valente, D

    Y . Zhang, B. Ens, K. A. Satriadi, A. Prouzeau, and S. Goodwin. TimeTa- bles: Embodied Exploration of Immersive Spatio-Temporal Data. InProc. VR, pp. 599–605. IEEE, Los Alamitos, 2022. doi: 10.1109/VR51125.2022. 000802

    work page doi:10.1109/vr51125.2022 2022

Showing first 80 references.