pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.15058 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

"From remembering to shaping": Narrating Shared Experiences by Co-Designing Cultural Heritage Artifacts in Collaborative VR

Fanxu Meng, Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah, RAY LC, Yushang Yang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords cultural heritagecollaborative VRgenerative AIco-designshared narrativesimmersive environmentscreative appropriationmemory construction
0
0 comments X

The pith

Collaborative VR workflows let pairs co-design 3D cultural heritage artifacts with generative AI to negotiate and shape shared memories.

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

This paper examines how people can shift from recalling cultural heritage places to actively constructing shared narratives by working together in virtual reality to design 3D scenes and objects. Using generative AI to materialize intangible memories, pairs of participants combined text prompts and arranged virtual models to reconcile differing personal views on the same heritage. They employed spatial placement both to build environments and to convey their own embodied experiences of places. When AI outputs proved inadequate, users repurposed them as creative starting points rather than discarding them, extending the collective story. The work argues this process shows a way for immersive tools to support communal memory-making despite the tendency of generative systems toward uniform results.

Core claim

In an immersive two-person VR workflow for collaboratively co-designing 3D artifacts and environments in virtual heritage locations, generative AI is used to instantiate intangible memories. Observations show participants merge prompts and model placements when negotiating different perspectives. They use spatial operations to compose scenes and also to express personal and embodied experiences of cultural heritage. When generative AI fails to meet their needs, participants engage in creative appropriation, re-purposing unsatisfactory generated objects as sources of design inspiration to further shared narratives. This demonstrates how people may overcome potential homogenizing effects of AI

What carries the argument

The two-person immersive VR co-design workflow that uses generative AI to turn intangible cultural memories into editable 3D artifacts, enabling prompt merging, spatial composition, and creative reuse of outputs.

If this is right

  • Participants reconcile differing views on heritage by combining text prompts and positioning models in a shared virtual space.
  • Spatial operations in the workflow serve both to assemble scenes and to communicate personal embodied connections to places.
  • Inadequate generative AI outputs become resources for further narrative development instead of stopping points.
  • Immersive collaborative tools can reduce the homogenizing influence of AI on cultural heritage expression.
  • Cultural heritage shifts from fixed individual records toward dynamically co-constructed shared stories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed appropriation pattern suggests future AI interfaces for heritage work should surface partial or failed outputs as remixable elements to support user creativity.
  • The workflow could be adapted for larger community groups or non-VR platforms to test whether similar negotiation and embodiment emerge in other collaborative settings.
  • Repeated sessions might alter how participants later recall or visit the real heritage sites, offering a way to measure lasting effects on memory.

Load-bearing premise

The specific behaviors observed in these VR co-design sessions with generative AI reflect how people would naturally build and share collective cultural memories even without the technology present.

What would settle it

Running matched sessions in which the same pairs discuss and narrate the identical heritage sites face-to-face without VR or AI, then comparing whether the resulting stories show the same level of perspective merging, spatial embodiment, and creative repurposing of imperfect ideas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15058 by Fanxu Meng, Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah, RAY LC, Yushang Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Participants negotiated and discussed prompts related to cultural heritage within a VR environment. They used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An illustration of the study setup. Two partici [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Demographic table 3.1 Participants We recruited 18 participants (9 pairs) through social media out￾reach and personal referrals, encompassing diverse professional backgrounds such as software development, design, law, and mar￾keting (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: System design and workflow the gap between GenAI knowledge and specific cultural heritage. In our study design, this model was not treated as a formal ex￾perimental condition for comparison, but rather as an optional empowerment tool. Participants were informed that they could re￾quest to use this specialized model at any point, particularly if they felt the standard model failed to capture the specific ar… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Screenshots of participants’ first-person perspective, the process of creating and editing the generated model in space, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: P3’s initial generation of a breakfast shop (left) prompted P4 to recall a specific memory of a steamer at the entrance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fine-tuned LoRA model streamlined the creative process. Participants could use simpler prompts (e.g., "a red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An example of "action as dialogue." In response to the verbal comment, a participant uses direct manipulation to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Participants strategically switched between perspectives. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Participants developed a modular, "Lego-like" building strategy. They generated individual architectural components, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 3D models serving as a cognitive bridge. To explain the abstract concept of "French Concession style" to the partner, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Creative adoption of unexpected AI outputs. When the AI generated an unprompted interior space for a coffee shop, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The AI acting as a mediator to resolve conflict. When P17 and P18 disagreed on architectural styles, they co-authored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Creative repurposing of a "failed" generation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The AI failed to generate a complete building but successfully created a "cat-shaped neon sign" in a style the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The comparison of using and not using custom LoRA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Behavior Coding Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_17.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The ways people remember and recall places reveal an invisible aspect of cultural heritage (CH), reflecting how individuals and communities relate to these places. Heritage is communal, emerging through collaboratively constructed narratives rather than individual records. To probe how people may share collective memories, we designed an immersive two-person workflow for collaboratively co-designing 3D artifacts and environments in virtual heritage locations, using Generative AI (GenAI) to instantiate these intangible memories. Observations of the co-creation process revealed that participants merged prompts and model placements when negotiating different perspectives. They used spatial operations to compose scenes, and also to express personal and embodied experiences of CH. When GenAI failed to meet their needs, participants engaged in creative appropriation, re-purposing unsatisfactory generated objects as sources of design inspiration to further shared narratives. While GenAI may have a homogenizing effect on CH expression, this work shows how people may overcome limitations in immersive collaborative workflows.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a qualitative design study of an immersive two-person VR workflow for collaboratively co-designing 3D cultural heritage artifacts and environments, instantiated via Generative AI to externalize intangible collective memories. Observations from the co-creation sessions indicate that participants merged prompts and model placements to negotiate differing perspectives, used spatial operations both to compose scenes and to express personal embodied experiences of heritage, and engaged in creative appropriation by repurposing unsatisfactory GenAI outputs as sources of further design inspiration. The work concludes that these strategies allow users to overcome potential homogenizing effects of GenAI on cultural heritage expression within collaborative immersive workflows.

Significance. If the reported observations hold, the paper contributes concrete, actionable insights to HCI, VR, and digital cultural heritage research on how collaborative systems can support the construction of shared narratives. The identification of creative appropriation and spatial negotiation as user strategies is a strength, as it provides design implications for systems that aim to preserve expressive diversity rather than default to homogenized outputs. The work is grounded in a specific, implemented workflow rather than abstract claims.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The central claims rest on qualitative observations of participant behaviors (prompt merging, spatial operations, creative appropriation). However, the manuscript provides no information on participant count, recruitment, session protocol, data collection (e.g., logging, video), or analysis approach (e.g., thematic coding). This absence directly undermines verifiability of the reported behaviors and the interpretive claim that they demonstrate overcoming GenAI limitations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The scale of the study (number of sessions or participants) is not indicated, which would help readers contextualize the strength of the descriptive claims.
  2. [Related Work] The paper would benefit from explicit comparison to prior VR co-design studies in cultural heritage to clarify the novel contribution of the GenAI integration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the work's contributions to HCI, VR, and digital cultural heritage, particularly the identification of creative appropriation and spatial negotiation strategies. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the presentation of our qualitative study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The central claims rest on qualitative observations of participant behaviors (prompt merging, spatial operations, creative appropriation). However, the manuscript provides no information on participant count, recruitment, session protocol, data collection (e.g., logging, video), or analysis approach (e.g., thematic coding). This absence directly undermines verifiability of the reported behaviors and the interpretive claim that they demonstrate overcoming GenAI limitations.

    Authors: We agree that the Methods section requires additional detail to support verifiability of the reported behaviors. This was an oversight in the submitted manuscript. In the revised version, we will expand the Methods section with a clear description of participant recruitment, the number of pairs involved in the co-creation sessions, the session protocol and tasks, data collection methods including video recordings and interaction logs, and the thematic analysis approach used to derive the observations on prompt merging, spatial operations, and creative appropriation. These additions will allow readers to better assess the interpretive claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

This is a qualitative HCI/design study reporting direct observations from two-person VR co-design sessions. No equations, derivations, parameter fitting, or predictive models exist. Claims rest on participant behaviors (prompt merging, spatial operations, creative appropriation) observed in the specific workflow, without reducing to self-definitions, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The study is self-contained against external benchmarks as an interpretive report of a designed intervention rather than a universal derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on the domain assumption that cultural heritage is inherently communal and best captured through collaborative narrative construction rather than individual records, with the VR-GenAI workflow serving as a probe for this process.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Heritage is communal, emerging through collaboratively constructed narratives rather than individual records.
    Stated directly in the abstract as the conceptual foundation for the work.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5471 in / 1281 out tokens · 54070 ms · 2026-05-10T10:21:42.799430+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Syifa Adiba, Febriyanto, and Nur Sanny Rahmawati. 2024. Exploring GenAI’s Role in Digital Cultural Memory at Museums and Art Galleries in Indonesia: AR and VR Perspectives. InInternational Conference on Asian Digital Libraries. Springer, Bandar Sunway, 198–211. doi:10.1007/978-981-96-0865-2_16

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-96-0865-2_16 2024

  2. [2]

    Dhruv Agarwal, Mor Naaman, and Aditya Vashistha. 2025. AI Suggestions Homogenize Writing Toward Western Styles and Diminish Cultural Nuances. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1117, 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713564

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713564 2025

  3. [3]

    Yannis Assael, Thea Sommerschield, Brendan Shillingford, Mahyar Bordbar, John Pavlopoulos, Marita Chatzipanagiotou, Ion Androutsopoulos, Jonathan Prag, and Nando De Freitas. 2022. Restoring and attributing ancient texts using deep neural networks.Nature603, 7900 (2022), 280–283. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04448-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04448-z 2022

  4. [4]

    2009.Heritage, values, and sustainability

    Erica Avrami. 2009.Heritage, values, and sustainability. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, CA

    2009

  5. [5]

    F. C. Bartlett. 1932.Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press

    1932

  6. [6]

    Mafkereseb Kassahun Bekele, Roberto Pierdicca, Emanuele Frontoni, Eva Savina Malinverni, and James Gain. 2018. A Survey of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality for Cultural Heritage.J. Comput. Cult. Herit.11, 2, Article 7 (March 2018), 36 pages. doi:10.1145/3145534

    work page doi:10.1145/3145534 2018

  7. [7]

    ISBN 978-1-4503-8309-7

    Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(Virtual Event, Canada)(FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 610–623. doi:10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 2021

  8. [8]

    1968.Illuminations

    Walter Benjamin. 1968.Illuminations. Schocken Books

    1968

  9. [9]

    Guido Bozzelli, Antonio Raia, Stefano Ricciardi, Maurizio De Nino, Nicola Barile, Marco Perrella, Marco Tramontano, Alfonsina Pagano, and Augusto Palombini

  10. [10]

    doi:10.1016/j.daach.2019.e00124

    An integrated VR/AR framework for user-centric interactive experience of cultural heritage: the ArkaeVision project.Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage15 (2019), e00124. doi:10.1016/j.daach.2019.e00124

    work page doi:10.1016/j.daach.2019.e00124 2019

  11. [11]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psy- chology.Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2) (2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa

    2006

  12. [12]

    Jiaxun Cao, Qingyang He, Zhuo Wang, RAY LC, and Xin Tong. 2023. DreamVR: Curating an Interactive Exhibition in Social VR Through an Autobiographical Design Study. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3544548.3581362

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581362 2023

  13. [13]

    Marcello Carrozzino and Massimo Bergamasco. 2010. Beyond virtual museums: Experiencing immersive virtual reality in real museums.Journal of Cultural Heritage11, 4 (2010), 452–458. doi:10.1016/j.culher.2010.09.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.culher.2010.09.002 2010

  14. [14]

    2015.Critical gaming: Interactive history and virtual heritage

    Erik Champion. 2015.Critical gaming: Interactive history and virtual heritage. Routledge, London, UK

    2015

  15. [15]

    Jack Shen-Kuen Chang, Georgina Yeboah, Alison Doucette, Paul Clifton, Michael Nitsche, Timothy Welsh, and Ali Mazalek. 2017. Evaluating the effect of tangible virtual reality on spatial perspective taking ability. InProceedings of the 5th Symposium on Spatial User Interaction(Brighton, United Kingdom)(SUI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yor...

    work page arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Adrian David Cheok, Naoko Tosa, and Mitsuru Ishizuka. 2014. The Mystery of Elin: Incorporating a City Cultural Program on History and Heritage into a Pervasive Game. InProceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interactive Entertainment. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. doi:10.1145/2677758.2677781

    work page doi:10.1145/2677758.2677781 2014

  17. [17]

    Li-Yuan Chiou, Peng-Kai Hung, Rung-Huei Liang, and Chun-Teng Wang. 2023. Designing with AI: An Exploration of Co-Ideation with Image Generators. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1941–1954. doi:10.1145/3563657.3596001

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3596001 2023

  18. [18]

    Luigina Ciolfi. 2013. The Collaborative Work of Heritage: Open Challenges for CSCW. InCo-creating CSCW: Experiences, Challenges and Opportunities, Luigina Ciolfi, Carla Simone, and Liam Bannon (Eds.). Springer, London, 83–101. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-5346-7_5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-5346-7_5 2013

  19. [19]

    Luigina Ciolfi and Liam Bannon. 2013. Designing for engagement: Tangible interaction in museums. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1139–1148. doi:10.1145/2470654.2466143

    work page doi:10.1145/2470654.2466143 2013

  20. [20]

    Marshall, and Abigail C

    Caroline Claisse, Daniela Petrelli, Luigina Ciolfi, Nick Dulake, Mark T. Marshall, and Abigail C. Durrant. 2020. Crafting Critical Heritage Discourses into Inter- active Exhibition Design. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13...

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376689 2020

  21. [21]

    H. H. Clark and S. E. Brennan. 1991.Grounding in communication. American Psychological Association, Chapter Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 127–149. doi:10.1037/10096-006

    work page doi:10.1037/10096-006 1991

  22. [22]

    Yalda Daryani, Zhivar Sourati, and Morteza Dehghani. 2026. The Homog- enizing Engine: AI’s Role in Standardizing Culture and the Path to Policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences13, 1 (2026), 14–27. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322251406591 doi:10.1177/23727322251406591

    work page doi:10.1177/23727322251406591 2026

  23. [23]

    2001.Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction

    Paul Dourish. 2001.Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA. doi:10.7551/mitpress/7221.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/7221.001.0001 2001

  24. [24]

    Ziv Epstein, Hope Schroeder, and Dava Newman. 2022. When happy accidents spark creativity: Bringing collaborative speculation to life with generative AI. arXiv:2206.00533 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.00533

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    McNeese, and Kelsea Schulenberg

    Guo Freeman, Dane Acena, Nathan J. McNeese, and Kelsea Schulenberg. 2022. Working Together Apart through Embodiment: Engaging in Everyday Collabo- rative Activities in Social Virtual Reality.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, GROUP, Article 17 (Jan. 2022), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3492836

    work page doi:10.1145/3492836 2022

  26. [26]

    I Am a Mirror Dweller

    Kexue Fu, Yixin Chen, Jiaxun Cao, Xin Tong, and RAY LC. 2023. "I Am a Mirror Dweller": Probing the Unique Strategies Users Take to Communicate in the Con- text of Mirrors in Social Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. doi:10....

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581464 2023

  27. [27]

    Being Eroded, Piece by Piece

    Kexue Fu, Ruishan Wu, Yuying Tang, Yixin Chen, Bowen Liu, and RAY LC. 2024. "Being Eroded, Piece by Piece": Enhancing Engagement and Storytelling in Cul- tural Heritage Dissemination by Exhibiting GenAI Co-Creation Artifacts. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Copen- hagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24). Association for Computing ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3660711 2024

  28. [28]

    Before gentrification, we claim for habitation

    Cristina Garduño Freeman and Katrina Jungnickel. 2019. “Before gentrification, we claim for habitation”: Eliciting Values and Assets through Cultural Heritage Storytelling. InProceedings of the 2019 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Con- ference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 881–893. doi:10.1145/3322276.3322354

    work page doi:10.1145/3322276.3322354 2019

  29. [29]

    Gergle, R

    D. Gergle, R. E. Kraut, and S. R. Fussell. 2013. Using visual information for grounding and awareness in collaborative tasks.Human-Computer Interaction 28(1) (2013), 1–39. 18

    2013

  30. [30]

    2012.Heritage and social media: Understanding heritage in a participatory culture

    Elisa Giaccardi. 2012.Heritage and social media: Understanding heritage in a participatory culture. Routledge, Abingdon, UK

    2012

  31. [31]

    If I were in Space

    Qi Gong, Ximing Shen, Ziyou Yin, Yaning Li, and RAY LC. 2025. "If I were in Space": Understanding and Adapting to Social Isolation through Designing Collaborative Storytelling. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1455–1482. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735846

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735846 2025

  32. [32]

    2014.Shanghai future: Modernity remade

    Anna Greenspan. 2014.Shanghai future: Modernity remade. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom

    2014

  33. [33]

    Shih, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M

    Kyungsik Han, Patrick C. Shih, Mary Beth Rosson, and John M. Carroll. 2014. Enhancing Community Awareness of and Participation in Local Heritage with a Mobile Application. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1144–1155. doi:1...

    work page doi:10.1145/2531602 2014

  34. [34]

    Yuanning Han, Ziyi Qiu, Jiale Cheng, and Ray Lc. 2024. When teams embrace AI: human collaboration strategies in generative prompting in a creative design task. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642133

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642133 2024

  35. [35]

    Douglas Harper. 2002. Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation.Visual Studies17, 1 (2002), 13–26. doi:10.1080/14725860220137345

    work page doi:10.1080/14725860220137345 2002

  36. [36]

    Steve Harrison and Paul Dourish. 1996. Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. InProceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work(Boston, Massachusetts, USA)(CSCW ’96). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 67–76. doi:10.1145/ 240080.240193

    work page arXiv 1996

  37. [37]

    Zhiting He, Jiayi Su, Li Chen, Tianqi Wang, and Ray Lc. 2025. ’I Recall the Past’: Exploring How People Collaborate with Generative AI to Create Cultural Heritage Narratives.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2, Article CSCW108 (May 2025), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3711006

    work page doi:10.1145/3711006 2025

  38. [38]

    Hoang Phuoc Ho, Vani Ramesh, Ivo Zaloudek, Delaram Javdani Rikhtehgar, and Shenghui Wang. 2025. Enhancing Visitor Engagement in Interactive Art Exhibitions with Visual-Enhanced Conversational Agents. InProceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 660–671....

    work page doi:10.1145/3708359 2025

  39. [39]

    Hong, Shabnam Hakimi, Yan-Ying Chen, Heishiro Toyoda, Charlene Wu, and Matt Klenk

    Matthew K. Hong, Shabnam Hakimi, Yan-Ying Chen, Heishiro Toyoda, Charlene Wu, and Matt Klenk. 2023. Generative AI for Product Design: Getting the Right Design and the Design Right. arXiv:2306.01217 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2306.01217

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Not Human, Funnier

    Xuehan Huang, Canwen Wang, Yifei Hao, Daijin Yang, and RAY LC. 2026. "Not Human, Funnier": How Machine Identity Shapes Humor Perception in Online AI Stand-up Comedy. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27. doi:10.1145/3772318.3791678

    work page doi:10.1145/3772318.3791678 2026

  41. [41]

    Chiara Innocente, Luca Ulrich, Sandro Moos, and Enrico Vezzetti. 2023. A frame- work study on the use of immersive XR technologies in the cultural heritage domain.Journal of Cultural Heritage62, 3 (2023), 268–283. doi:10.1016/j.culher. 2023.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.culher 2023

  42. [42]

    Pei Jin and Yi Liu. 2022. Fluid space: Digitisation of cultural heritage and its media dissemination.Telematics and Informatics Reports8 (2022), 100022. doi:10. 1016/j.teler.2022.100022

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    2017.A history of architectural conservation

    Jukka Jokilehto. 2017.A history of architectural conservation. Routledge, London, UK

    2017

  44. [44]

    S. Jones. 2017. Wrestling with the Social Value of Heritage: Problems, Dilemmas and Opportunities.Journal of Community Archaeology and Heritage4, 1 (2017), 21–37. doi:10.1080/20518196.2016.1193996

    work page doi:10.1080/20518196.2016.1193996 2017

  45. [45]

    Kalay, Thomas Kvan, and Janice Affleck

    Yehuda E. Kalay, Thomas Kvan, and Janice Affleck. 2008.New heritage: New media and cultural heritage. Routledge, New York, NY, USA

    2008

  46. [46]

    Stefan Krumpen, Reinhard Klein, and Michael Weinmann. 2021. Towards Tangi- ble Cultural Heritage Experiences—Enriching VR-based Object Inspection with Haptic Feedback.J. Comput. Cult. Herit.15, 1, Article 19 (Dec. 2021), 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3470470

    work page doi:10.1145/3470470 2021

  47. [47]

    Black Forest Labs. 2024. FLUX. https://github.com/black-forest-labs/flux

    2024

  48. [48]

    Ray LC. 2023. Together Enough: Collaborative Constructions of Adaptations to Climate Futures. InCompanion Publication of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 55–59. doi:10.1145/3563703.3596805

    work page doi:10.1145/3563703.3596805 2023

  49. [49]

    RAY LC. 2024. The Present Is in the Future: Participatory Generative AI Co- Created Visions as Intangible Cultural Heritage. InProceedings of the 17th In- ternational Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction (VINCI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 45, 2 pages. doi:10.1145/3678698.3687200

    work page doi:10.1145/3678698.3687200 2024

  50. [50]

    RAY LC, Sidong Wang, Shuxin Wang, and Nianhang Du. 2025. Archive For / In the Future. InProceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 Art Gallery (SA Art Gallery ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 3 pages. doi:10.1145/3757368.3765555

    work page doi:10.1145/3757368.3765555 2025

  51. [51]

    Sebastian Linxen, Christian Sturm, Florian Brühlmann, Vincent Cassau, Klaus Opwis, and Katharina Reinecke. 2021. How WEIRD is CHI?. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 143, 14 pages. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445488

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445488 2021

  52. [52]

    Chunyao Liu and Erin Cunningham. 2023. Capturing the Haipai Spirit: Garden Villa Interiors and the Preservation of Prada Rong Zhai.Journal of Interior Design48, 2 (2023), 139–153. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/10717641231155084 doi:10.1177/10717641231155084

    work page doi:10.1177/10717641231155084 2023

  53. [53]

    Sijia Liu, Ray LC, Kexue Fu, Qian Wan, Pinyao Liu, and Jussi Holopainen. 2024. Dreamscaping: Supporting Creativity By Drawing Inspiration from Dreams. InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 93–99. doi:10.1145/ 3635636.3660762

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Salt is the Soul of Hakka Baked Chicken

    Sijia Liu, Xiaoke Zeng, Fengyihan Wu, Shu Ye, Bowen Liu, Sydney Cheung, Richard William Allen, and RAY LC. 2025. "Salt is the Soul of Hakka Baked Chicken": Reimagining Traditional Chinese Culinary ICH for Modern Contexts Without Losing Tradition. InCreativity and Cognition (C&C ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 11. doi:10.1145/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3698061.3726917 2025

  55. [55]

    Y. Liu. 2020. Evaluating visitor experience of digital interpretation and presenta- tion technologies at cultural heritage sites: a case study of the old town, Zuoying. Built Heritage4 (2020), 14. doi:10.1186/s43238-020-00016-4

    work page doi:10.1186/s43238-020-00016-4 2020

  56. [56]

    Jackson, Daivon Reeder, Camaria Wafer, Mark S

    Alex Jiahong Lu, Shruti Sannon, Cameron Moy, Savana Brewer, Jaye Green, Kisha N. Jackson, Daivon Reeder, Camaria Wafer, Mark S. Ackerman, and Tawanna R. Dillahunt. 2023. Participatory Noticing through Photovoice: Engag- ing Arts- and Community-Based Approaches in Design Research. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657 2023

  57. [57]

    Malegiannaki, Thanasis Daradoumis, and Symeon Retalis

    Irini A. Malegiannaki, Thanasis Daradoumis, and Symeon Retalis. 2020. Teaching Cultural Heritage through a Narrative-based Game.J. Comput. Cult. Herit.13, 4, Article 27 (Dec. 2020), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3414833

    work page doi:10.1145/3414833 2020

  58. [58]

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. 2021. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis.Commun. ACM65, 1 (2021), 99–106. doi:10.1145/3503250

    work page doi:10.1145/3503250 2021

  59. [59]

    Marty Miller, Zhiyuan Zhang, Jing Liao, and Ray Lc. 2025. Eliciting (Immersive) Intangibles: GenAI-Supported Collaborative Visual Narration In a Physically Immersive Space. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, 3313–3325. doi:10.1145/3715336. 3735682

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336 2025

  60. [60]

    Kichan Nam, Christopher S Dutt, and Jeff Baker. 2023. Authenticity in objects and activities: Determinants of satisfaction with virtual reality experiences of heritage and non-heritage tourism sites.Information Systems Frontiers25, 3 (2023), 1219–1237

    2023

  61. [61]

    Hui En Pang and Filip Biljecki. 2022. 3D building reconstruction from single street view images using deep learning.International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation112 (2022), 102859. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2022.102859

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jag.2022.102859 2022

  62. [62]

    Irina Paraschivoiu, Robert Steiner, Judith Wieser, and Alexander Meschtscher- jakov. 2025. Crafting Cities Together: Co-located Collaboration with Augmented Reality for Urban Design.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)(2025). doi:10.1007/s10606-025-09510-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10606-025-09510-8 2025

  63. [63]

    DreamFusion: Text-to-3D using 2D Diffusion

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. 2022. DreamFusion: Text-to-3D using 2D Diffusion. arXiv:2209.14988 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2209.14988

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Rida Qadri, Piotr Mirowski, and Remi Denton. 2025. AI and Non-Western Art Worlds: Reimagining Critical AI Futures through Artistic Inquiry and Situated Dialogue. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 201, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714049

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714049 2025

  65. [65]

    Jukka Rämö, Markku Turunen, and Timo Kallio. 2016. HISTORY IS 3D: Presenting a Framework for Meaningful Historical Representations in Digital Media. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. IEEE, Lund, Sweden, 89–96. doi:10.1109/VSMM.2016.7863195

    work page doi:10.1109/vsmm.2016.7863195 2016

  66. [66]

    2016.Narrating Space / Spatializing Narrative: Where Narrative Theory and Geography Meet

    Marie-Laure Ryan, Kenneth Foote, and Maoz Azaryahu. 2016.Narrating Space / Spatializing Narrative: Where Narrative Theory and Geography Meet. Ohio State University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2t46rcp

    2016

  67. [67]

    Jae-Eun Shin and Woontack Woo. 2023. How Space is Told: Linking Trajectory, Narrative, and Intent in Augmented Reality Storytelling for Cultural Heritage Sites. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 241, 14 pages. doi:10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581414 2023

  68. [68]

    Neil Silberman and Margaret Purser. 2012. Collective memory as affirmation: People-centered cultural heritage in a digital age. InHeritage and Social Media. Routledge, London and New York, 13–29. doi:10.4324/9780203112984-10

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203112984-10 2012

  69. [69]

    L. Smith. 2006.Uses of Heritage (1st ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203602263

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203602263 2006

  70. [70]

    Laurajane Smith. 2014. Intangible Heritage : A challenge to the authorised heritage discourse.Revista d’Etnologia de Catalunya39 (2014), 12–22. 19

    2014

  71. [71]

    Susan Leigh Star and James R Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology,translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.Social studies of science19, 3 (1989), 387–420

    1989

  72. [72]

    Yujie Sun, Dongfang Sheng, Zihan Zhou, and Yifei Wu. 2024. AI hallucination: towards a comprehensive classification of distorted information in artificial intelligence-generated content.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (2024). doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03811-x

    work page doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03811-x 2024

  73. [73]

    Violeta Tsenova, Gavin Wood, Andrea Dolfini, Annie Tindley, and David Kirk

  74. [74]

    InPro- ceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20)

    Un-authorised View: Leveraging Volunteer Expertise in Heritage. InPro- ceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376558

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376558 2020

  75. [75]

    Violeta Tsenova, Gavin Wood, and David Kirk. 2023. Loci Stories: Exploring Design for Polyvocality. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15–30. doi:10.1145/3563657.3596114

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3596114 2023

  76. [76]

    Van Den Eede

    Y. Van Den Eede. 2011. In Between Us: On the Transparency and Opacity of Technological Mediation.Foundations of Science(2011). doi:10.1007/s10699-010- 9190-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10699-010- 2011

  77. [77]

    Buchanan T. W. 2007. Retrieval of emotional memories.Psychological bulletin 133(5) (2007), 761–779. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.761

    work page doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.761 2007

  78. [78]

    Brady Wagoner. 2017. What makes memory constructive? A study in the serial reproduction of Bartlett’s experiments.Culture & Psychology23, 2 (2017), 186–207. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X17695759 doi:10.1177/1354067X17695759

    work page doi:10.1177/1354067x17695759 2017

  79. [80]

    Jiayu Wang, Ming Ming Su, Geoffrey Wall, Hangyu Dong, and Huanzhou Zhang. 2024. Intergenerational evolution of intangible cultural heritage through tourism development: perspectives of practitioners in Hangzhou China.International Journal of Heritage Studies30, 8 (2024), 968–991. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2024.2363793 doi:10.1080/13527258.202...

    work page doi:10.1080/13527258.2024.2363793 2024

  80. [81]

    Yuqi Wang, Sirui Wang, Shiman Zhang, Kexue Fu, Michelle Lui, and Ray Lc. 2025. From Temporal to Spatial: Designing Spatialized Interactions with Segmented- audios in Immersive Environments for Active Engagement with Performing Arts Intangible Cultural Heritage. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Funchal, Madeira, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735787 2025

Showing first 80 references.