applied

sciences
Review
Augmented Reality in Cultural Heritage: An Overview of the
Last Decade of Applications
Răzvan Gabriel Boboc 1, * , Elena Băutu 2 , Florin Gîrbacia 1 , Norina Popovici 3 and Dorin-Mircea Popovici 2, *

1 Department of Automotive and Transport Engineering, Transilvania University of Brasov,

500036 Brasov, Romania
2 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Ovidius University of Constanta,
900527 Constanta, Romania
3 Department of Business Administration, Ovidius University of Constanta, 900470 Constanta, Romania
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link] (R.G.B.); dmpopovici@[Link] (D.-M.P.)

Abstract: Augmented reality is a mature technology that uses the real world as a substrate and
extends it by overlaying computer-generated information. It has been applied to several domains. In
particular, the technology was proven to be useful for the management and preservation of Cultural
Heritage. This study provides an overview of the last decade of the use of augmented reality in
cultural heritage through a detailed review of the scientific papers in the field. We analyzed the
applications published on Scopus and Clarivate Web of Science databases over a period of 9 years
(2012–2021). Bibliometric data consisted of 1201 documents, and their analysis was performed using
various tools, including ScientoPy, VOS Viewer, and Microsoft Excel. The results revealed eight
trending topics of applying augmented reality technology to cultural heritage: 3D reconstruction of
cultural artifacts, digital heritage, virtual museums, user experience, education, tourism, intangible
cultural heritage, and gamification. Each topic is discussed in detail in the article sections, providing
Citation: Boboc, R.G.; Băutu, E.; insight into existing applications and research trends for each application field.
Gîrbacia, F.; Popovici, N.; Popovici,
D.-M. Augmented Reality in Cultural Keywords: 3D reconstruction; digital heritage; virtual museums; user experience; education; tourism;
Heritage: An Overview of the Last intangible cultural heritage; gamification; survey
Decade of Applications. Appl. Sci.
2022, 12, 9859. [Link]
10.3390/app12199859

Academic Editors: Areti Damala, 1. Introduction

Akrivi Katifori, Angeliki Antoniou Augmented reality (AR) is one of the most up-to-date and advanced areas of technol-
and Paraskevi Raftopoulou ogy. The field of AR application began in the 1990s [1] and has continuously increased in
Received: 11 July 2022
importance since then, along with technological advances and the development of informa-
Accepted: 27 September 2022
tion and communication technologies (ICTs). While virtual reality (VR) refers to creating a
Published: 30 September 2022
digital world that reproduces an environment that already exists in the reality, AR provides
a framework for adding information to the real-world environment. AR technology allows
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
users to perceive the world in an enhanced way; it improves the users’ experience by
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
overlaying computer-generated information, including graphics, sounds, and sometimes
published maps and institutional affil-
touch feedback, on the real environment [2]. Thus, new metaphors of interaction with
iations.
the physical world and synthetic information about the environment need to be invented,
tested, and applied.
AR has been applied in various fields, from medicine to education, automotive indus-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
try, healthcare, or tourism [3]. In particular, it was proven to be useful for the management
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. and preservation of cultural heritage (CH). There are some main purposes for which AR
This article is an open access article is used in CH: improving visitor experience, reconstruction, and exploration [4], as well
distributed under the terms and as conservation and preservation [5] and bringing to life past events [6]. The technology
conditions of the Creative Commons that is most often applied in all these cases is digitization. It is used as a complementary
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// method to preserve CH assets and to enhance traditional conservation procedures [7].
[Link]/licenses/by/ Once digitized, cultural heritage is ready to be accessed by all beneficiaries, both
4.0/). scientists and non-scientists. Starting with non-scientists, the large public is eager to

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859. [Link] [Link]

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 2 of 25

consume this information available in digital form. In order to maximize this stream
from cultural heritage towards the ordinary consumer, it is necessary to maximize the
users’ absorption of heritage knowledge through such a visualization. This means that
visualizations have to be adaptable, interactive, and user-oriented. On the other hand, we
strongly consider scientists that deeply understand the valuable information they obtain
using multi-level digitization techniques. They are striving to record everything about
the artifacts: materials they are made of, weather conditions, historical period, relations
between artifacts, functionalities, using procedures, etc. [8]. All these metadata must be
recorded in order to be readily used or for the technology that will be available in the
future [9]. For now, this information could be augmented as volume on the social network
bases and using deep learning techniques for automated input [10]; validated through
ontologies [11]; and multimodally visualized using VR or better AR technologies that
involve visual display, gesture detection, force-feedback, and audio rendering. We consider
that interactively touching the past through digital artifacts, while listening its narrative
and observing its reaction to user actions, is one of the ultimate forms of cultural immersion
that can be offered to the user.
On another hand, digitization is a chance of survival for the world cultural heritage
under a double threat, that of natural cataclysms and that induced by direct human criminal
actions. An ideal digitization technique will allow us to perfectly replicate a digitized
artifact. However, we are far from this ability. In our days, the digitization results are
largely visualized using different technologies, such as VR and AR, and are manipulated
by the user in supervised setups using gesture-based, touch or touchless implemented
metaphors. Using the early stage of 3D printing technology, scaled mockups of digitized
artifacts are currently available to the large public for free and direct manipulation, without
the fear of destruction and offering a personalized individual experience and knowledge
on what the artifact was about or used for and how it was used [12].
Various use cases for AR/VR in the context of digital heritage are reviewed in the
following. With applications in social media-based recommendations, psychiatric art
therapy, theater and artistic representations, and cultural heritage dissemination AR/VR-
based tools have become parts of our everyday life and are here to stay for the next decade.
Previous reviews studied the application of AR technology in CH from several view-
points. In [13], important aspects related to VR/AR/MR technology and relevant technical
requirements needed to develop CH applications are listed. The tracking, display, and
interface aspects of AR applications are outlined. In [14], how AR is used in the field
of history education and which AR applications might be acceptable for this field are
examined. The content analysis method was used to analyze mobile AR applications in the
field of CH [15]. Recently, [11] presented a survey of current ontologies and data models
for AR urban environment applications in the CH field. These reviews are mainly focused
on technologies and methods.
Bibliometric analyses have often been used lately to guide the future direction of
research in various fields [16–18]. An important goal of bibliometric analysis is to generate
a comprehensive overview of trends within a research domain and to examine the perfor-
mance of countries, institutions, and researchers in terms of dissemination and publication.
In [19], a bibliometric analysis carried out in 2016 and 2017 in the field of digital heritage is
presented. The study identified that, most often, keywords are related to the technology
used to develop digital heritage applications. Recently, a bibliometric analysis that outlines
the use of AR for the dissemination of architectural heritage was presented in [7]. In [20],
the current issues related to digital museum are overviewed using bibliometric analysis,
and the relevant fields of research identified are digital humanities and VR and AR tech-
nologies. The publication trends between 2016 and 2021 in using digitization technology
for CH applications are presented in [7]. This bibliometric analysis outlined that CH is
increasingly adopting digitization.
AR is a dynamic research field, and it is necessary to underline the state of the research
and to provide the latest trends which will allow the development of future studies. The
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 3 of 25

AR tools facilitate access to cultural heritage in an interactive and engaging way [21]. The
present paper aims to carry out a conclusive study on the efforts made in the last ten years
for the development of AR applications used for the preservation and promotion of CH. We
analyze how AR is involved in cultural heritage applications by conducting bibliometric
research regarding the documents published on AR applications in CH in the last ten years.
We review the relevant literature in order to investigate the following research questions:
Q1. What are the trends in using AR for cultural heritage applications?
Q2. What is the structure of the last decade of literature?
Q3. What are the main research results?
Our review is structured as follows: First, we provide insight into the research method-
ology we adopted in our endeavor, pointing out the document search and selection criteria,
software and data extraction process, and the analysis of the results and trends. Section 3 is
the core of our review, focusing on the top trending applications of AR in cultural heritage.
The section uses eight of the most used keywords/research topics identified in the scien-
tific production of the field as heading pillars, namely 3D reconstruction, digital heritage,
virtual museum, user experience, education, tourism, gamification, and intangible cultural
heritage. The paper ends with our detailed conclusions where we share with the reader
our opinion with respect to what the future of cultural heritage dissemination technology
looks like.

2. Research Method
The data used for the present study were retrieved from Scopus and Clarivate Web of
Science (WoS). We selected these databases because they contain extensive peer-reviewed
publications and provide effective tools for downloading data. The search was run in
April 2022, using the search terms “(Augmented OR Mixed) Reality AND (Cultur* AND
Heritage)”. We selected the search query that ensures the relevancy of the results to the
application of AR to cultural heritage. The period selected to accomplish the goal of this
research was between 2012 and 2021. A filter search was used to reduce the number of
articles to only those published in English, because in most cases, the results of this field
of interest are available generally in English [22] (see Figure 1). A list of the selected
documents and their key information was exported into the .csv (comma-separated value)
format. Based on the chosen search terms, we obtained 835 documents from WoS and 883
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 4 of 26
documents from Scopus.

Figure 1. The methodology used in this study.

Figure 1. The methodology used in this study.
In the next step, the ScientoPy scientometric tool [23] was used for data reconciliation
[24]. Both datasets were merged, and all duplicate documents were removed using Scien-
toPy (see Figure 2). Hence, through pre-processing, 504 documents were removed from
Scopus and 13 from WoS. In addition, ScientoPy was used to simplify authors’ names,
accents, and abbreviations. The result contains 1201 unique entities from both datasets
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 4 of 25

Figure 1. The methodology used in this study.

InInthe
thenext
next step, the ScientoPy
step, the ScientoPyscientometric
scientometrictool
tool[23]
[23]was
was used
used forfor data
data reconcilia-
reconciliation
tion
[24]. Both datasets were merged, and all duplicate documents were removed usingusing
[24]. Both datasets were merged, and all duplicate documents were removed Scien-
ScientoPy
toPy (see (see Figure
Figure 2). Hence,
2). Hence, through
through pre-processing,
pre-processing, 504 documents
504 documents werewere removed
removed from
from Scopus
Scopus and and 13 from
13 from [Link].
In In addition,
addition, ScientoPywas
ScientoPy wasused
usedtoto simplify
simplify authors’
authors’ names,
names,
accents,
accents,andandabbreviations.
abbreviations. The
The result
result contains
contains 1201
1201unique
uniqueentities
entitiesfrom
fromboth
bothdatasets
datasets
stored
stored in .csv format and was used as input for further analysis of bibliographic [Link]
in .csv format and was used as input for further analysis of bibliographic data. We
also used the Excel 360 software tool in the data analysis process.
also used the Excel 360 software tool in the data analysis process.

[Link]
Figure Thepre-processing
pre-processingdata
datafrom
fromScopus
Scopusand
andWoS
WoSdatabases.
databases.

ScientoPycan
ScientoPy cancategorize
categorizemost
mostprominent
prominenttrends
trendsusing
usingthe
thefollowing
followingtopic
topicgrowth
growth
indicators:average
indicators: averagegrowth
growthrate
rate(AGR),
(AGR),average
averagedocuments
documentsper peryear
year(ADY),
(ADY),percentage
percentageofof
documentsininlast
documents lastyears
years(PDLY),
(PDLY),h-index
h-indexofofeach
eachtopic
topic[23].
[23].In
InTable
Table11we wepresent
presentthethemain
main
topicsofofapplying
topics applyingaugmented
augmentedreality
realitytotoculture
cultureheritage.
[Link]
followingareas
areaswere
werethethe
mostprominent
most prominenttrends
trendsidentified:
identified:(a)
(a)the
the3D
3Dreconstruction
reconstructionofofcultural
culturalartifacts;
artifacts;(b)
(b)digital
digital
heritage;
heritage;(c)
(c)virtual
virtualmuseums;
museums;(d) (d)user
userexperience;
experience;(e)
(e)education;
education;(f) (f)tourism;
tourism;(g)
(g)intangible
intangible
cultural
culturalheritage;
heritage;(h)
(h)gamification.
gamification.

Table 1. Growth indicators of selected trend topics.

Pos Author Keywords Total AGR ADY PDLY h-Index

1 3D reconstruction 155 −6.5 14.5 18.7 12
2 Digital heritage 107 −2.5 14.5 27.1 11
3 Virtual museums 78 −5.0 8.5 21.8 14
4 User experience 63 −2.5 10.5 33.3 10
5 Education 60 −2.5 5.5 18.3 12
6 Tourism 48 −0.5 7.5 31.2 10
7 Intangible cultural heritage 40 −2.0 5.5 27.5 5
8 Gamification 39 −1.0 2.0 10.3 8

Figure 3 shows the evolution of the current trending topics in the field of AR applied
in CH. This plot is based on a query that returns the most popular topics according to the
cumulative number of documents versus the year of publication. The trend visualization
includes all documents published in the last decade. A logarithmic scale is used on the
Y-axis to facilitate visualization. This evolution plot provides information regarding the
evolution of the trend for the past 10 years. It can be seen that topmost popular topics
followed a similar pattern. The plot shows that most of the documents follow a consistent
pattern of growth. In the right diagram in Figure 3, the AGR for each trending topic
between 2020 and 2021 is represented on the Y-axis, and the PDLY is represented on the
X-axis. The trending topic with the highest number of documents is “3D reconstruction”
and the topic with the second highest relative growth is “digital heritage”.
 lution of the trend for the past 10 years. It can be seen that topmost popular topics followed
a similar pattern. The plot shows that most of the documents follow a consistent pattern
of growth. In the right diagram in Figure 3, the AGR for each trending topic between 2020
and 2021 is represented on the Y-axis, and the PDLY is represented on the X-axis. The
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 trending topic with the highest number of documents is “3D reconstruction” and the 5topic of 25
with the second highest relative growth is “digital heritage”.

trending topics
Figure 3. Top trending topics generated
generated from
from the
the author
author keywords.
keywords.

Considering
Considering thethe type
type ofof documents,
documents, there there are
are 419
419 journal
journal articles,
articles, 746
746 conferences
conferences
and proceedings papers,
and proceedings papers,16 16book
bookchapters,
chapters, and
and 20 20 reviews.
reviews. FigureFigure 4 shows
4 shows the VOS
the VOS soft-
software
ware [25] network visualization of documents for each country, colored according to the
[25] network visualization of documents for each country, colored according to the
number
number ofof publications
publications inin that
that country.
country. ItIt indicates
indicates that
that as
as of
of December
December 2021,
2021, the
the highest
highest
numbers
numbers ofof related
related articles
articles were
were published
published by Italy, followed
by Italy, followed by by Greece,
Greece, Spain,
Spain, China,
China, and
and
United
United Kingdom. This finding is a good indicator of which countries currently provide
Kingdom. This finding is a good indicator of which countries currently provide
research
research and
and development
development in in this
this area. In addition,
area. In addition, itit may
may6 ofhelp
help researchers
researchers assess
assess their
their
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 26
country’s impact on the field.
country’s impact on the field.

Figure 4. The 10 most active countries in the field of AR in cultural heritage.

Figure 4. The 10 most active countries in the field of AR in cultural heritage.
Figure 5a contains the first 10 countries that have at least 5 publications. The rank
Figure
indicates 5a contains
the country’s the first
position according 10number
to the countries that have
of publications. at least
The number of 5 publications. The rank
articles in each country is a more appropriate measure than the country’s popularity in
indicates the country’s position according to the number of
the topic. The number of citations per institution (Figure 5b) shows a relatively similar
publications. The number of
articles in previous
result to the each country
figure. Theishighest
a more appropriate
numbers of citationsmeasure than
were observed in the
threecountry’s popularity in the
countries:
topic. Italynumber
The (2344), the United Kingdomper
of citations (909),institution
and Spain (608).
(Figure 5b) shows a relatively similar result
 Figure 4. The 10 most active countries in the field of AR in cultural heritage.

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859

Figure 5a contains the first 10 countries that have at least 5 publications. The 6rank
of 25
indicates the country’s position according to the number of publications. The number of
articles in each country is a more appropriate measure than the country’s popularity in
the topic. The number of citations per institution (Figure 5b) shows a relatively similar
to the previous
result figure. The
to the previous highest
figure. The numbers of citations
highest numbers were observed
of citations in three countries:
were observed in three
Italy (2344), the United Kingdom (909), and Spain (608).
countries: Italy (2344), the United Kingdom (909), and Spain (608).

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 5.
5. The
The 10
10 most
most active
active countries
countries by
by number of documents
number of documents (a)
(a) and
and citations
citations (b).
(b).

3. Top Trending
Trending Applications
Applications of
of AR
AR in
in Cultural
Cultural Heritage
Heritage
Over the last decade, AR technologies had significant growth. There has been steady
progress in the development of AR applications for CH, which has led to the
the development
development
of engaging apps that are making a greater impact on several
several topics.
topics.

3.1. Three-Dimensional Reconstruction

Ancient artifacts carry invaluable information about the culture and civilization of
a society. However, they are often not well preserved or are inaccessible because of their
size and fragility. It is estimated that in the past ten thousand years, more than 90% of
humanity’s cultural heritage has been lost [26]. The merging of 3D reconstruction and AR
for cultural heritage is currently becoming an emergent technology [27].
Three-dimensional reconstruction technologies show great potential for the digital preser-
vation of CH artifacts [28–30]. Research in this field started before 2010, so a review published
in 2009 lists several projects related to AR and virtual heritage [31]. The 3D reconstruction
process consists of a sequence of steps [32]. The first and fundamental step is obtaining the
initial data collection by using several technologies, among which the relevant ones for CH
artifact reconstruction are: photogrammetric 3D modeling, triangulation and time-of-flight
laser scanning, structured light, stereo-calibrated optical sensors, and mobile lidar.
Photogrammetry is one of the most often used methods in the 3D modeling of CH
artifacts [33,34]. However, it relies on a considerable number of images and an increased
computation time for an efficient reconstruction. Therefore, it takes more time to converge.
On the other hand, the 3D geometry-based modeling approach depends on a depth-sensing
camera which is often too expensive for many applications. Recent works propose methods
to obtain information about depth using lasers or structured light [35].
A laser scanner is a high-quality 3D solution that allows creating models by scanning
any surface—from stone to wood, metal, and many more—but the hardware equipment is
expensive and complex software is needed to process data [36–38]. The recent development
of lidar technology and the integration with a mobile platform enables adequate speed and
accuracy for large CH sites [39].
One image is not enough, in most cases, for a complete representation of a 3D
model [32]. The artifact images may have several different viewpoints. The next step
in the 3D reconstruction is the alignment of color and depth information. The alignment
of range images can be performed by using the iterative closest point (ICP) approach [31].
When the registration is accomplished, all the generated 3D views are combined in a single
mesh. In the final stage, the 3D model is textured for a realistic representation of the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 7 of 25

digital CH artifact. The selection of the optimal solution for the 3D reconstruction is a
challenging task.
A method that combines several techniques for 3D object restoration for AR applica-
tions is presented in [40]. The solution includes obtaining the 3D point cloud of the CH
artifact using a 3D scanner device, processing and reconstruction of the 3D model using
Meshlab, and building the AR application for the visualization of the restored CH artifact.
AR provides a method that enables experiencing a 3D reconstruction of a CH artifact
(see Figure 6) with a high level of detail and with a full-scale dimension of the space
perception, without requiring the user to have specialized knowledge [41,42]. Three-
dimensional models in combination with AR enable the general public to better understand
and experience history through more intuitive and interactive means [43–45]. Furthermore,
the 3D reconstruction of CH artifacts can be used for 3D replications that involve combining
digital touch screens, AR applications, and high-quality 3D printing. The subjects that
evaluated 3D AR considered the use of reproductions or physical 3D prints intuitive, mainly
for contextual understanding and intangible experiences [46].
AR is used for the restoration of deteriorated religious objects [47] and can help to
revive these important CH objects [48]. It can be used to identify the most appropriate
restoration approach to produce a realistic replica, which reduces costs and speeds up the
process. Using 3D reconstruction technologies, a digital model of the damaged object can be
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 created [49], which is then used to generate an AR application [50] that helps to determine 8 of 26
the best restoration approach [42]. The main drawback of AR technology is related to the
lack of proper guidelines on how to use this technology. The limited experience with AR
applications is anotherissignificant
with AR applications issue that issue
another significant limitsthat
the adoption
limits the of this technology
adoption in the
of this technol-
reconstruction process.
ogy in the reconstruction process.

[Link]
Figure Anexample
exampleofofmobile
mobileAR
ARapplication
applicationfor
forexploration
explorationof
ofthe
the3D
3Dreconstructed
reconstructedPrejmer
Prejmer
Fortified Church, a UNESCO monument from Transylvania, Romania, courtesy of Voinea
Fortified Church, a UNESCO monument from Transylvania, Romania, courtesy of Voinea et [Link] al.[51].
[51].

[Link]
3.2. DigitalHeritage
Heritage
UNESCO’s definition
UNESCO’s definition of
ofdigital
digitalheritage
heritagestates
statesthe
thefollowing:
following: “Digital
“Digital heritage
heritage isis
made
madeup upofofcomputer-based
computer-basedmaterials
materialsofofenduring
enduringvalue
valuethat
thatshould
shouldbe bekept
keptfor
forfuture
future
generations. Digital heritage emanates from different communities, industries,
generations. Digital heritage emanates from different communities, industries, sectors sectors and
regions. Not all
and regions. digital
Not materials
all digital are of are
materials enduring value, value,
of enduring but those
butthat arethat
those require active
are require
preservation approaches
active preservation if continuity
approaches of digitalofheritage
if continuity digital is to be maintained.”
heritage [52]. As such,
is to be maintained.” [52].
As such, we are interested in those applications that encompass digital heritage and tech-
nologies such as augmented reality, virtual reality, or mixed reality (MR). We review some
of the influential work in this respect in the following.
Digital heritage sites benefit extensively from the advent of social media platforms
and applications that integrate feedback from such platforms [53]. Balduini et al. analyzed
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 8 of 25

we are interested in those applications that encompass digital heritage and technologies
such as augmented reality, virtual reality, or mixed reality (MR). We review some of the
influential work in this respect in the following.
Digital heritage sites benefit extensively from the advent of social media platforms
and applications that integrate feedback from such platforms [53]. Balduini et al. analyzed
social media traffic (more precisely Twitter messages) in Seoul, in 2011, and discovered
heavy messaging regarding various points of interest in the city, such as restaurants or
cafes. Starting from this, they proposed a complete system based on semantic technologies
which includes an AR app that recommends locations, which were previously ranked by
analyzing the opinions of users over a period of three years [53]. Another application that
demonstrates the value of digital heritage in tourism is presented in [54]. Here, an AR app
exploits the concept of gamification in order to aid the process of learning history.
Studies of AR applications dedicated to digital culture that are integrated in psychi-
atric therapy are promising. In [55], AR applications are presented as helpful tools for
practitioners to deliver a form of art therapy. The acceptance of digital tools by therapists
was influenced by their educational level with respect to the use of digital media. Digital
tools are now embraced by researchers and practitioners [56,57]. Clinical interventions that
use VR or AR are reviewed in [58], in the context of psychological and behavioral health,
with the purpose of identifying how technology modulates the communication between
patient and clinician.
The immersion of the visitor in the theater representation is facilitated by augmented
reality in [59]. The authors bring their contribution in the form of 3D models of a historical
church, as well as in the development of a multimedia system that allows participants in
the show to be immersed in the virtual space. Digital heritage capitalized by means of
AR applications, supported by sonic narratives [60], aids in creating a believable experi-
ence [59].
In another study pertinent to digital heritage, the digitization of cultural assets in
museums in China is inspected [61]. The study involved 22 sites selected as testbeds
for digital heritage applications, such as AR, VR, or multi-touch systems. The authors
investigated factors that influence the successful use of the digital exhibits and patterns of
behavior of the visitors in order to obtain a proper understanding of how digital culture
use may be enhanced in China.
Malik et al. are investigating the perception of digital (based on AR, VR or digital
displays) vs. physical (based on 3D printing) replicas of cultural heritage artifacts at the
level of different stakeholders, both specialists and non-specialists, together with their
applicability in different contexts [48].
The augmentation of museum exhibits with supplementary information (see Fig-
ure 7) helps build an “animated archive of cultural materials” [62], whose scope is to
catalog objects alongside their descriptions and to identify multiple representations of the
same object.
A step forward is made in [63] by augmenting virtual replicas of cultural heritage
monument visualizations with real actors interpreting historical figures using narrative-
based setups.
As for the creation of digital media content, in [64], an AR application is researched in
an educational context, in an AR-based application for a design course. The app is found to
aid students in concentrating and self-learning and also to raise students’ confidence.
 A step forward is made in [63] by augmenting virtual replicas of cultural heritage
monument visualizations with real actors interpreting historical figures using narrative-
based setups.
As for the creation of digital media content, in [64], an AR application is researched
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859
in an educational context, in an AR-based application for a design course. The app is
9 of 25
found to aid students in concentrating and self-learning and also to raise students’ confi-
dence.

Figure7.7. A
Figure A 3D-augmented
3D-augmentedbook
booktitled
titledConstitutio Criminalis
Constitutio Theresiana
Criminalis (also
Theresiana known
(also as Nemesis
known The-
as Nemesis
resiana). Courtesy of Duguleană M. [65].
Theresiana). Courtesy of Duguleană M. [65].

3.3. Virtual Museums

3.3. Virtual Museums
Museums that want to go beyond their traditional experience of providing infor-
Museums that want to go beyond their traditional experience of providing information
based onbased
mation audioon audioand
guides guides
paperand paper are
catalogs catalogs areto
starting starting
innovateto innovate at of
at the level thethe
level of
user
the user experience
experience (see Figure(see Figure 8),
8), making making
it more it more
intuitive intuitive
[66]. [66]. time,
At the same At the same
they aretime, they
adopting
are adopting innovative systems able to deliver the content of their information
innovative systems able to deliver the content of their information while improving the while im-
proving the visitor’s experience. AR museum information experience enables
visitor’s experience. AR museum information experience enables the visitors to learn about the visitors
to learn
art about[67,68],
collections art collections [67,68],sites
archaeological archaeological sitesbuildings
[69], or ancient [69], or ancient
[53,70]buildings
in a simple [53,70]
and
in a simple and intuitive way [71]. Another advantage of using
intuitive way [71]. Another advantage of using AR technologies in the museum is AR technologies inthe
the
museum
ability is the ability to
to dynamically adddynamically add a digital
a digital interactivity interactivity
component to component to a museum
a museum exhibit. The
exhibit. The digitally interactive component may be an AR game [72] that
digitally interactive component may be an AR game [72] that engages a player as a type engages a player
of digital interactivity, or it may be a feature that provides an enhanced education [73,74]
or some other type of content related to the physical exhibit [75]. This has the effect of
increasing the visitor’s level of engagement with the artifacts and their meaning.
The necessity for developing innovative methods to digitize CH artifacts into readily
deployable 3D content is becoming a priority as AR gains more attention in the CH sector.
Additionally, the workflows required to transform CH artifacts into immersive 3D content
are hardly supported. In [76], a practical workflow that can be utilized for 3D reconstruction
to AR visualization of CH assets has been developed, and it identifies and combines a
variety of open access and custom tools and services.
By using AR technologies, galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAMs) can
add multiple sensorial experiences that can engage visitors with CH content. One such
example is the alternating reality (AltR) narrative that was introduced in [77]. This is an
interweaving of two seemingly disparate narratives, one real and one virtual. During
this real-time experience, the user visualizes and interacts with the virtual narrative. The
Museum Coffee Table [68] is a physical surface that has been augmented so that actual
objects can be used to access data about artists and their works. Using this system, the
entire family may gather around the table, enjoy coffee, and enhance their museum tour by
learning new information and having fun.
A study on how digital narrative content is used to communicate information regard-
ing heritage trails through mobile apps is presented in [78]. By creating a list of the most
frequently used features in successful mobile applications, it aims to make heritage trail
apps more accessible and usable.
Accessibility issues in museums and exhibitions require special attention. The current
museum guide solutions do not facilitate the experience of CH content for people with
hearing loss or people with other disabilities. AR technology provides an immersive way
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 10 of 25

for people with hearing loss that allows them to engage with museum exhibitions [79].
In [80], an AR application that uses virtual humans as sign language storytellers for on-site
CH experiences is proposed.
Cataloging is an important part of the museum process that allows systematic classifi-
cation of artifact information such as material, shape, function, and history. AR technologies
can be used for cataloging information that describes museum artifacts in a dynamic and
augmented description [62]. AR can help in the involvement of a new audience in museums
through multi-dimensional environments that transpose visitors from physical to digital
experiences and enable the exploration of new views [81,82]. Many studies [63] estimate
that, in the near future, AR is expected to be used in a wide variety of museum exhibits
that will increase visitor knowledge and interactivity. However, there are still some issues
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 that limit the use of AR technologies, mostly related to user experience (UX) and technical
11 of 26
knowledge required to develop AR apps [82].

[Link]
Figure Visualizationandandinteraction
interactionwith
withentire
entire3D
3Dscene
scene(a)
(a)and
anda avirtual
virtualartifact
artifact (b).Courtesy
(b). Courtesyof
of Popovici et al.
Popovici et al. [83].[83].

3.4. User Experience

3.4. User Experience
An evaluation
An evaluation ofof ARAR technology
technologypotential
potentialfrom fromthethepoint
pointofof
view
view of of
stakeholder
stakeholder in-
terests is performed in [84]. Stakeholders are regarded as either internal,
interests is performed in [84]. Stakeholders are regarded as either internal, such as a such as a mu-
seum’s staff
museum’s members,
staff members, or external,
or external,such as the
such visitors
as the of the
visitors museum
of the museum or community
or community rep-
resentatives. The
representatives. Theauthors
authors explore
explorethetheimplications
implicationsofofusing
using ARAR on various dimensions,
on various dimensions,
such as economic impact, social effects, or educational impact, in a user-based
such as economic impact, social effects, or educational impact, in a user-based qualitative qualitative
study performed in a small museum in the UK. The user study
study performed in a small museum in the UK. The user study gathered stakeholders’ gathered stakeholders’
impressions on
impressions on items
items pertaining
pertaining toto each
each of of the
the dimensions
dimensions where
where ARAR value
value waswas being
being
assessed (economic, experiential, social, epistemic, historical and cultural,
assessed (economic, experiential, social, epistemic, historical and cultural, educational). educational).
Culturalheritage
Cultural heritagewas
wasproven
proventotobenefit
benefit greatly
greatly from
from adopting
adopting AR, AR, from
from thethe perspective
perspective of
of both
both internal
internal andand external
external stakeholders.
stakeholders.
Thewillingness
The willingnessof ofusers
userstotoadopt
adoptAR-specific
AR-specificgadgets,
gadgets,such
suchas asAR
ARsmart
smartglasses,
glasses,and
and
the potential behind such devices from the user perspective are studied
the potential behind such devices from the user perspective are studied in [85,86]. The in [85,86]. The
study[85]
study [85]used
usedaasample
sampleof of2828visitors
visitorsto toaasmall
smallUK-based
UK-based art art gallery,
gallery,and
andititfocused
focusedon on
identifyingthe
identifying thedriving
drivingfactors
factors that
that influence
influence useruser preferences
preferences for for smart
smart glasses
glasses in a in a cul-
cultural
tural setting.
setting. WhileWhile innovativeness
innovativeness was perceived
was perceived as a plus,
as a plus, the interaction
the interaction was was difficult
difficult for
for some users, even though they assimilated the smart glasses to regular glasses that they
would wear. The perceived enjoyment was positive, as was the perceived usefulness.
In [86], smart glasses were used in an outdoor setting, enhancing with both audio
and visual aids the exhibits at the Hecht Museum in Israel. In the experimental study, a
tour guide implemented as a mobile application is compared to the AR smart glasses
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 11 of 25

some users, even though they assimilated the smart glasses to regular glasses that they
would wear. The perceived enjoyment was positive, as was the perceived usefulness.
In [86], smart glasses were used in an outdoor setting, enhancing with both audio and
visual aids the exhibits at the Hecht Museum in Israel. In the experimental study, a tour
guide implemented as a mobile application is compared to the AR smart glasses guide
solution, with respect to usability and user acceptance, following a thorough statistical
methodology. While the novelty of using smart glasses was the main attraction, the study
also revealed some problems relating to the specific outdoor environment, such as lighting,
that need to be addressed in the future.
Guidelines for the design of applications using wearables and in particular smart
glasses are derived from an experiment at the MIT Museum in [87]. Observational data
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 were gathered from 12 participants recruited among MIT students, freely interacting with 12 of 26
a
Glassware prototype in the Robotics Gallery, followed by a qualitative study that extracted
emerging trends from text, transcribed from audio interviews.
The
Theinfluence
influencemixed
mixedreality
realityexerts
exertson onthe
themuseum
museumexperience
experienceisismodeled
modeledin in[88].
[88].The
The
museum
museum context providedby
context is provided bythe
theexhibition
exhibition“the“the Ara
Ara as as it was”
it was” fromfrom
the the
AraAra
PacisPacis
Mu-
Museum.
seum. In theIn the research
research design,
design, the the visitor
visitor experience
experience is assessed
is assessed on seven
on seven dimensions
dimensions (mu-
(museum information, customization, format, usability, information saving,
seum information, customization, format, usability, information saving, interaction, expe- interaction,
experience)
rience) withwith 23 individual
23 individual variables.
variables. TheThe relativelylarge
relatively largeandanddiverse
diverse user
user sample
sample (586
(586
local
local and international visitors) provides value to the conclusions of the study,that
and international visitors) provides value to the conclusions of the study, thatusers
users
are
aremoderately
moderatelytotohighly
highlysatisfied
satisfiedwith
withmixed
mixedreality integration
reality integrationin the
in museum.
the museum. However,
How-
the study
ever, was only
the study performed
was only performedin one museum,
in one museum, andandit leaves
it leavestotofuture
futurework
workquestions
questions
regarding
regardingthe theinfluence
influencethat various
that factors,
various suchsuch
factors, as cultural background
as cultural or previous
background mixed
or previous
reality experiences, have on the overall mixed reality experience.
mixed reality experiences, have on the overall mixed reality experience.
Tourism
Tourismbenefits
benefitsfrom
fromcultural heritage
cultural heritageARARapplications
applications havehave
beenbeen
explored to enhance
explored to en-
the
hance the attractiveness of local cultural tourism sites (see Figure 9). User experiencewith
attractiveness of local cultural tourism sites (see Figure 9). User experience with
using
using mobile
mobile ARAR applications
applications inin the
the cultural
cultural heritage
heritage tourism
tourism context
context isis modeled
modeled with
with
Hassenzahl’s theoretical model in [89], and it is empirically confirmed in a particular
Hassenzahl’s theoretical model in [89], and it is empirically confirmed in a particular im-
implementation for urban tourism in Dublin, Ireland. The user sample was limited, and the
plementation for urban tourism in Dublin, Ireland. The user sample was limited, and the
qualitative study was not followed by a quantitative study to test its generalization power.
qualitative study was not followed by a quantitative study to test its generalization power.

Figure 9. Mobile AR application for improving the experience of the tourists. Courtesy of Boboc et
Figure 9. Mobile AR application for improving the experience of the tourists. Courtesy of Boboc
al. [6].
et al. [6].

In[90],
In [90],the
theauthors
authorsattempt
attemptaa case
case study
study ofof aa complex
complex ARAR application,
application, which
which encom-
encom-
passes gestures and uses a 3D holographic interface and integration with
passes gestures and uses a 3D holographic interface and integration with the Meta [Link] Meta plat-
form. Apart from providing developmental details regarding the application,
Apart from providing developmental details regarding the application, the paper also the paper
also presents
presents a quality
a quality assurance
assurance testingtesting thatplace
that takes takesinplace in Canada’s
Canada’s largest museum,
largest museum, namely
namely Royal Ontario Museum. This preliminary testing resulted in
Royal Ontario Museum. This preliminary testing resulted in some issues to be addressed some issues to by
be
addressed
the by theteam,
development development
such as the team,
lacksuch
of anasexact
the lack of an exact
description description
of the of the ges-
gestures recognized
tures
by the recognized
application by the application
or failing to provideorhelp
failing to virtual
in the provideimmersive
help in the virtual immersive
environment.
environment.
Another high-impact case study of an AR mobile application created as a tour guide
is presented in [91], in research deployed in two directions: one regarding the detailed
presentation of the developmental details and the other describing the survey designed
to evaluate the app and the empirical results obtained by applying the survey in a user
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 12 of 25

Another high-impact case study of an AR mobile application created as a tour guide

is presented in [91], in research deployed in two directions: one regarding the detailed
presentation of the developmental details and the other describing the survey designed to
evaluate the app and the empirical results obtained by applying the survey in a user sample.
While the majority of usability studies deal with assessing the effects of technology on
the main beneficiaries, which are the users (or the visitors, in a museum context), in [92],
the evaluation takes into account three categories of individuals: the professional in the
field of cultural heritage, the institution itself, and the visitor. To this end, a model is
proposed, under the name MUSETECH, that is applicable for various technologies (mobile,
AR, VR) in various fields (education, museums, tangible experiences). The model proposed
is suitable for evaluating the impact of technology on the three categories of individuals.
A complex user-based study, with both qualitative and quantitative items, proposes
discriminating between the attraction of museum visitors to AR technology in a museum
gallery and their distraction by such technology by evaluating the “attentional balance” of
visitors using the AR virtual magnifier (loupe) [93].
Four levels of experience of the user, in the context of dealing with VR applications
for museums, are identified in [94]: artifact-related, behavior-related, spiritual level, and
creation level. They are exploited by the VR application itself in the process of delivering
information. A review of papers is provided, grouping them according to the specific
level of user experience that is the purpose of the research in the paper. Finally, the paper
proposes a model for the VR museum experience that relies on the four levels of experience
discussed and acts as a design framework for VR-enabled museum exhibitions [94].
A communicative approach exploits gamification in the cultural heritage landscape in
a complex application that uses VR by means of a head-mounted display, as well as AR by
means of a mobile application, to allow virtual exploration of a 3D reconstructed temple
and personalized interaction with the historical vestiges [95]. Preliminary evaluation of the
prototype makes use of a preliminary analysis (prior to public exposure to the system), a
survey completed during the museum visit, and a paper-based questionnaire filled out at
the end of the visit.
The attractiveness of outdoor heritage landmarks is enhanced by means of a mobile
AR application in [96], which addresses five different historical epochs. The small usability
study (15 users) uses a survey with 7-point Likert scale items grouped in order to target
various traits of the application, such as comprehensibility, manipulability, enjoyment, and
usefulness.
We note the preference of researchers for user studies on various dimensions that
translate into questionnaire items for each variable involved.
At the same time, theoretical models are empirically studied and reinforced with
user-based questionnaire studies [86–92]. We notice a smaller preference of researchers
towards proposing new models, such as in [94], a fact that may be due to the inherent
difficulty of proposing and validating a new model, and further having it accepted and
becoming mainstream in the research community.

3.5. Education
As we go through the third decade of the 21st century, innovations in education are
needed more than ever, since many distractions compete to steal students’ attention from
the educational act. Digital technologies, which young users are attracted heavily to, can
be capitalized into transforming the way students learn.
VR and AR can play a crucial role, enabling users to learn and repeat experiments
with minimal costs as many times as they wish [97]. In addition to the advantages of VR,
AR is cheaper and can provide more interactive and cooperative communication ways
between students [98].
Wearable AR gear—in particular, Google Glass—is used in [99] in a controlled experi-
ment aimed to assess the effect of the wearables on the user learning experience, set in the
context of a museum gallery of British paintings from the 19th century. An evaluation of
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 13 of 25

the level of enjoyment of the users, their level of understanding and knowledge and the
improvement of their skills, and their appreciation of the learning experience completed
the controlled experiment [99]. Some drawbacks of using Google Glass were also identified,
such as diminished social interaction between the learners using the wearables.
AR combined with a dual display and a multi-touch screen was found to help students
better relate to the spatial context of historical monuments in [100].
Mobile learning by means of an AR application on a tablet used in real fieldwork
learning is compared to traditional eLearning that takes place in a classroom with a regular
desktop computer in [101]. The learning context is provided by heritage elements of the city
Santiago of Chile. The study found that the mobile learning process significantly enhances
the educational outcomes. Historical knowledge gain is the focus of the mobile AR multi-
user game application presented in [102], used both in an indoor and in an outdoor setting.
Bits of history are discovered in a playful manner by users, engaging them seamlessly in
the learning process [103]. Serious games, i.e., “games with educational purposes”, are
a valuable teaching tool in the humanities field, allowing the users to engage and be im-
mersed in the virtual created environment [104]. Different game genres (such as adventure,
strategy, or puzzle games) and different learning objectives aid in distinguishing between
the many serious games reviewed in [93]: games that target cultural awareness (e.g., Dis-
cover Babylon ([Link] accessed
on 29 September 2022, Roma Nova [Link]
accessed on 29 September 2022)), and Remembering 7th Street ([Link]
accessed on 29 September 2022), games that target historical reconstruction (such as
The Battle of Thermopylae [105] or The Playing History ([Link], ac-
cessed on 29 September 2022)), or games intended to raise heritage awareness (such as
Time Explorer ([Link]
[Link], accessed on 29 September 2022) or Tate Trumps ([Link]
[Link]/press/press-releases/tates-new-art-game-mobiles-race-against-time, accessed on
29 September 2022)).
A large number (n = 197) of cultural heritage education programs is reviewed in [106]
to identify the specific components that influence the potential of AR and VR for facilitating
the learning process, making use of the Q-Edutage scale [107] in the evaluation process.
While the use of novel technologies is a trigger for students’ motivation in learning [108],
it is interesting to assess the impressions of those that usually deliver education. Teachers’
views on the usefulness of AR tools in learning, as well as their willingness to continuously
learn themselves and to participate in the creation of such tools, are depicted in [109]. Teachers
were found to be eager to prepare continuously, participating in seminars and training sessions
on new technologies. While the majority of those scrutinized had no experience with 3D
modeling, all of them showed interest in learning 3D modeling techniques and would even
consider participating in the development of new AR tools for learning.
The target group for the learning process in [110] consists of adults, in the context
of a literature museum. An AR web application augments a literary museum, together
with storytelling techniques, in an attempt to immerse visitors into the virtual universe of
Svevo’s literary work, proving that even senior citizens can benefit from specially designed
AR applications.
Art and multimodal technologies intertwine in education or cultural heritage applica-
tions [111] which describe, among others, an interactive environment created to mediate
non-verbal communication and social collaboration, using complex audio interaction. Col-
laboration and multimodality are the distinctive features of VR/AR heritage applications
that enable proper relations between users and the cultural context [112]. In [44], AR
is used to support the visitor experience of the cultural landscape of Matera through a
mobile application.
During the past decade, AR and VR have touched the educational process in various
fields, such as industrial processes [97], museums [100,108], art [99], history [102–104],
geography [102], and even literature [110]. We expect such applications to flourish in the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 14 of 25

future, as the technological pipeline is now mature and AR application development is

becoming easier.

3.6. Tourism
The potential of MR technology in tourism was increasingly exploited in the last
decade, due to the growing accessibility of the latest technology for 3D heritage content
creation, visualization, and interactive dissemination, both in public edutainment environ-
ments and in academic/research units.
With predecessors such as Rome Reborn [113,114] and Ancient Miletus [115], Archeogu-
ide [116] is one of the first AR-based cultural heritage projects that highlighted the influence
that AR technology can instill in empowering tourism in Greece at the beginning of the
21st century and has not stopped inspiring since.
No matter which visualization solution is implemented, CAVE-based [117] with the
promise of group-oriented virtual visits or HMD-based [118] with increasing quality of
user-immersion or large visual displays [119] installed inside a museum, the challenges
the technology had to face regarding tourist satisfaction in using the system were strongly
linked with the cultural experience [87].
Studying the impact virtual reality technologies may have on tourism activities,
Marasco et al. [118] proved that although a strong emotional user involvement is trig-
gered by a virtual reality-based experience with great perceived visual appeal, the impact
on the behavioral intentions to visit a cultural heritage site was not as positive as ex-
pected [118]. The authors warn that their study was realized on a single virtual tourism
site, so a generalization of their results cannot be made. However, they appreciate the
marketing potential posed by the VR experience, due to the emotional implications of
users’ experience which translates into the propagation of positive impressions to other
potential users.
The biggest step from CAVE or large display-based public VR systems was made
once the mobile devices became powerful enough in order to be more than displaying
devices [103]. Moreover, VR-oriented solutions started to be replaced with AR hand-held
solutions as a new way to enhance user satisfaction while still preserving the cultural
heritage and being able to offer a user-adapted learning experience [84].
In [120], the effect of cultural influences on the acceptance or adoption of AR applica-
tions is assessed in a study involving participants from the Republic of South Korea and
from the Republic of Ireland. The aesthetics of AR is found to have a strong positive influ-
ence on the perceived usefulness, the perceived ease of use, and the perceived enjoyment
of AR, in both countries.
A VR/AR multimodal application dedicated to the cultural heritage monument Jeju
Island of South Korea is described in detail in [121]. A virtual assistant helps the user
navigate the heritage site, while full immersion is made possible by the use of the Google
Cardboard VR headset, and AR visualization and virtual handling of artifacts is also made
possible by the application. Several hypotheses are expressed, in the framework provided
by the Technology Acceptance Model, and verified in a user-based study involving 251 users
which found that the hedonic characteristics of the application prevail over other utility-
related features.
Cultural heritage valorization by means of a wearable AR project set in an art museum
context is the object of study in [99]. As wearable gear, the Google Glass is considered,
and the study performs a comparison of two samples, Google Glass wearers and a control
group, with respect to learning outcomes, enjoyment, and influence on future behavior.
The control group showed slightly greater knowledge gain than the participants in the
wearable AI application, who were distracted more by the novelty of the application and
did not focus as well on the learning experience. On the other hand, Google Glass wearers
had better and faster access to a greater quantity of information, in a seamless fashion.
Social isolation was reported as a downside of using the AR solution.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 15 of 25

Smart glasses are used within another AR application in an art museum setting
in [85]. The participants in the study positively perceived the innovative character of
the application, yet they appreciated the interaction as difficult, not being accustomed
to wearable equipment previously. The majority of participants found the application
enjoyable and useful from a cultural tourism perspective.
No matter what the level of mixture between the real environment and the computer-
generated content is, cultural heritage virtual environments are inspired by historical facts
and have as their main function the visualization and interpretation of digital replicas. Once
the user wants to reach the next level of virtual cultural experience, interaction with virtual
artifacts has to take place on the basis of alternate scenarios that bring into hypothetical
setups the known and contested historical heritage [122].
Annotated assisted on-site navigation allows for a profound multimodal exploration
of cultural heritage sites [123,124]. User experience both inside and outside of museums
is enhanced by the use of mobile applications that facilitate sharing of content between
users and building cultural memory [123], profiting from both tangible and intangible
cultural heritage.
The integration of VR/AR/MR elements into tourism activities, such as a museum
visit, brings opportunities in a mixed reality project developed in Rome, in the museum
Ara Pacis [81], but also brings forward some difficulties inherent to such a project. User
immersion in a museum space redesigned to fit MR elements, such as audio, video, or touch,
enhances the experience from various perspectives, including educational, socialization,
and entertainment. The experience of users participating in a virtual tour augmented using
smart glasses is evaluated in [125] through the analysis of text from reviews posted on the
TripAdvisor platform. Two AR mobile applications for urban heritage capitalization are
described in [89]. They are analyzed in a user study that assessed their utility, aesthetics,
and interestingness, and both apps are found to enrich the tourist experience, in both
outdoor and indoor environments.

3.7. Gamification
In recent years there have been some very interesting developments in the gamification
space that can help change the perception of the types of applications and uses of AR in CH.
The concept of gamification was defined as “the use of game design elements in non-game
contexts” [126] or “game science that explores the various design techniques, and related
concerns, that can be used to add game elements to existing real-world processes” [127].
More recent, another definition states that “gamification is about taking something that
is not a game and applying game mechanics to increase user engagement, happiness
and loyalty” [128]. The advantages offered by gamification highlighted by the above
definition have been exploited also for the enhancement of the CH field by making CH
more interesting and providing unique and entertaining ways for people to learn and
experience these spaces. Often referred to with alternative terms such as “pervasive games”
or “game-based learning” [129], gamification has been used in this field mainly in two
forms: serious games (SGs) and storytelling.
SGs were created with the aim of producing constructive or educative results in
addition to entertainment value. So, their objective is to support the user in achieving
learning goals through a fun experience [106]. In CH, SGs are considered some of the most
innovative ways to understand culture and history by using interactive technologies [130].
SGs are characterized by the following features: (a) the user’s behavior, learning, and
achievement goals are more important than entertainment; (b) the design of the game is
specifically created to improve the knowledge, skills, and behaviors of the target users.
There are several ways that SGs can be used to encourage more engagement with
CH. For instance, the SG concepts could be used to gamify the interactions with artifacts
using multimodal interfaces to create immersive experiences for users [131]. An immersive
haptic VR system for recreating the experience of shooting with a bow was presented
in [132]. Haptic feedback had the potential to improve the user experience, as shown
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 16 of 25

in [133]. In addition, SG and gamification were used to gamify social spaces, providing
opportunities for visitors to explore CH spaces in a fun and engaging way at the same time.
In particular, gamification in the context of museums has been a fruitful research topic
with some interesting examples of AR systems used for game-like interaction [134,135].
The enhanced AR experiences in museum settings have the potential to maximize user
satisfaction and also learning outcomes [136]. In spite of the opportunities offered by indoor
environments, many recent AR experiences have been designed using smartphones and
tablets as supporting hardware for outdoor settings [137,138], for instance to discover CH
locations [139] and to enhance experiential learning [140]. In [141], a mixed reality (MR)
assisted by geoinformatics technologies for reviving historical events was presented.
The other form of gamification with great potential to revolutionize the way the users
engage with CH is storytelling. Digital storytelling (DS) is defined as the evolution of
traditional storytelling that combines the ancient art of telling a story and current techno-
logical possibilities [142]. Extended reality (XR) technologies have been used successfully
in interactive DS applications to experience past events and meet historical characters [63]
or to enhance the appreciation of classical Chinese poetry [143].
The relationship between AR technology and storytelling was also explored in [110]
for an application designed to engage the visitors of a literary museum.
While gamification has been discussed as a means to provide incentives for engage-
ment, immersive technologies also have a clear potential to support the public interested
in CH, not only for tangible CH elements, such as artifacts, buildings, and historic sites,
but also for intangible CH to highlight social values and traditions [144] such as traditional
sports [145] or craft [146]. AR and gamification can be seen as related fields, and their
success is closely related to enhancing people’s experiences and promoting learning and
collaboration. The use of AR in CH will be extremely diverse in content, types of interaction,
locations, and contexts, providing means for multisensorial experiences [147].

3.8. Intangible Cultural Heritage

Intangible cultural heritage (ICH) plays an important role in the life of each community
because it is an expression of the history, traditions, and culture of the people who have
lived and worked in a certain area. UNESCO includes in ICH the following: “oral traditions,
performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning
nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts” [148].
Digital solutions could help to preserve and protect ICH. AR technology has great
potential to enhance the perception of intangible cultural heritage [149]. In [150], the
authors proposed an AR system designed for the digital protection of ICH that uses an
intelligent terminal to fuse its content and realist video images in the scene.
AR technologies can be used to overlay ICH-related virtual decoration in living space,
which brings a new enjoyable perspective to the user experience [151]. Additionally, based
on AR technologies, the environment can become similar to a stage where traditional
dances (for example Australian Al Ardha aboriginal dance [152] or Greek traditional dance
“Syrtos in Three” [153]) can be learned.
In the field of digital display for ICH-related content, AR equipment can provide
virtual try-on experiences of traditional costumes and accessories [154]. By experiencing
the AR environment, users could transpose themselves to a traditional atmosphere [155].
Interactive AR walls that combine markers, projection mapping, and animations are also
suitable for presenting folklore heritage, national traditions, and legends [156]. Visitors can
also experience an immersed impression by using HMD in conjunction with ICH-related
materials [157]. Despite all the advantages of using AR technology, one downside is the
increased amount of time needed for the production process of AR applications [158].

4. Conclusions
The main goal of this study was to identify and overview the most significant topics
from the last decade in the field of augmented reality and cultural heritage. We conducted
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 17 of 25

an advanced search on the Scopus and WOS databases and performed a scientometric
analysis on a large article dataset (n = 1201) using ScinetoPy and VOS software. In summary,
the findings showed that there is a growing interest in applications of AR in many CH
contexts, from 3D reconstructions to intangible cultural heritage. The growing tendency for
each topic was highlighted using trend analysis indicators AGR, ADY, and PDLY.
The 3D reconstruction of cultural heritage objects is a complex task. Over the last
decade, several techniques for 3D reconstruction such as photogrammetry, laser scanning,
lidar, and structural light were successfully used for many CH artifacts. While these
techniques provide the raw data, other techniques derived from AI such as deep learning
and ontology at the same time enrich and filter the information to be used by different types
of users such as researchers, museographers, or tourists. In this regard, as in the Europeana
platform mentioned, a cultural heritage cloud is prepared to be densely populated and
largely disseminated all around the world [159].
AR is a very effective solution for showcasing 3D reconstructed artifacts. It can
also be used to identify the most appropriate restoration approach to produce a realistic
replica, which reduces costs and speeds up the restoration process. Aspects as data quality,
available metadata, and multi-layered information related to the real artifacts are some
essential aspects that have to be considered in order to ensure a self-sustainable AR-
based CH application. For many CH artifacts, 3D reconstruction combined with AR
produced practical solutions, but there are still many difficulties and unresolved issues.
Future research in this area may focus on real-time digitization techniques that are more
computationally efficient.
Digital heritage benefits extensively from AR technologies, whose recent widespread
adoption makes them a major challenge to the way we understand and study the past. The
development of AR has led to important research with the aim of addressing the needs of
museums, archives, and heritage institutions. Developed applications demonstrate that AR
can improve several tasks in digital heritage, namely visualization of reconstructed artifacts,
documentation, and contextual understanding. In addition, using AR technology, digital
heritage combines creative industries’ production with the digitization of CH artifacts in
order to augment the visitor experience with animated digital archives, mixing real-world
remnants with digital media. It is of real importance that tourists have the opportunity not
only to touch the past through 3D printed replicas of pieces that transcend ancient history
but also to experiment with and thus be culturally immersed in interactive setups involved
in inter-human lost activities.
AR virtual museums enable a deeper level of involvement and connection between
museums and their visitors. AR has been used to make the museum contents more
interesting and attractive to the users. To create AR experiences, a variety of techniques
are used in order to render a vast amount of information about artifacts, mainly using a
mobile device. In this way, AR technologies have the potential to increase access to and
interchanging of information that describes the CH artifacts in a dynamic way. At the
same time, AR is beginning to be largely used for offering new audiences in museums
through multi-dimensional environments that transpose visitors from physical to digital
multimodal experiences. However, the usage of AR technologies is still constrained by a
few issues, most of which are related to the complex technical skills needed to develop
these applications.
Available AR technology’s potential has been proved in CH both from economic and
social perspectives. While specific AR gadgets are triggering willingness to use, they are
proved to be more suitable in indoor setups rather than outdoor ones. Mobile technology
remains one of the most accessible and promising solutions for the user-oriented AR
visualization of CH. In order to obtain an effective AR app from the user experience
point of view, there are some design considerations that must be addressed. Usability,
intuitive visualization of AR content, and the conception of UX interfaces must all be given
importance. Enjoyment and usefulness are important aspects regardless of whether we
consider the user’s freedom to interact through AR technology, where smart glasses are
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 18 of 25

preferred because of the user’s free hands and gesture-based implemented metaphors,
rather than interaction with mobile multi-touch displays. In addition, the development of
an AR app for CH requires knowledge and understanding of cultural and historical aspects.
Education has been in the spotlight in the last decade, especially in recent years.
Gaining students’ attention and maintaining it is particularly difficult in the context of
heavy social media and computer or mobile device usage. Recent advances in technology
must be exploited to add value to the educational process, and AR, VR, and MR are
not exceptions. In cultural heritage-related education tools, AR plays an important role,
allowing full immersion in 3D reconstructed historical settings and/or free interaction
with virtual reconstructed artifacts. Gamification is combined with AR/VR, ensuring a
collaborative and engaging experience, in which learning happens seamlessly. At the same
time, through the addition of visual and auditory features to the digital collections, AR
increases students’ access to CH resources and their understanding.
It is hard to find CH experiences outside a tourism-based experience. We cannot
imagine holidays without heritage objectives of interest to visit, locally or abroad. AR
applications can help tourism by enhancing the visitor’s experience and improving CH
information perception. By adding 3D visuals to the existing information, AR-based
tourism applications can also give tangible advantages by enhancing the value of existing
CH attractions.
Nevertheless, technology has a long way to go until the tourists will select their
cultural heritage objectives as “have to visit this one” points of interest on their holiday
map, despite the fact that it is mature enough to increase the visual appeal of real artifacts
augmented with digital ones and thus trigger strong emotional involvement of the user in
a possibly multimodal (visual, audio, textual, intangible) experience. However, tourists
are starting to transform from “simple” CH content consumers, using mobile accessible
devices, to digital heritage contributors, by the means of social media platforms, sharing
their CH-oriented experiences and augmenting them with their own stories and memories
and thus pushing forward the common cultural memory. Of course, this trend comes
with the challenge of filtering this huge amount of information, classifying it, relating
it to the existing information, and finally deciding if the visitor’s input was useful to
humanity’s memory.
Gamification is intensely exploited in electronic educational resources, especially in the
context of online learning. Cultural heritage educational applications make no exception,
especially since the AR tools used for developing such solutions allow seamless integration
of game-like behavior. Be it a serious game approach to CH or a storytelling approach,
application areas for CH education benefit greatly from gamification. User engagement
and collaboration, which are crucial for the end results of any educational process, are
promoted by incorporating game-related ideas into CH applications. AR and gamification
may provide a viable tool to engage participants not only in tangible CH elements, such as
artifacts, buildings, and historic sites, but also in intangible CH.
In our vision, ICH is somehow an ultimate form of CH expression because it subsumes
artifacts, their functionalities, the processes in which they are used, and the purposes of
their use. Even if we talk about traditions (oral and gestures), performing arts, social
practices, rituals, knowledge, or practices focused on any kind of human activity (e.g., skills
to produce traditional crafts), addressing ICH with AR technology combined with user
action validation (possibly based on some kind of ontology) could believably transpose the
“cultural immersion” experience.
Although the analysis of keywords from Scopus and WOS databases provides high
quality and consistency of the presented results, the inclusion of other databases can
provide a more thorough identification of trending topics in the fields of augmented reality
and cultural heritage.

Author Contributions: R.G.B., F.G. and D.-M.P. performed the conceptualization; R.G.B., F.G., and
E.B. conceived the methodology; D.-M.P., F.G. and N.P. performed the validation; F.G. performed the
formal analysis; R.G.B., E.B., F.G., N.P. and D.-M.P. performed the investigation; F.G. identified the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 19 of 25

resources; R.G.B., E.B., F.G., N.P. and D.-M.P. performed the data curation; R.G.B., E.B., F.G., N.P. and
D.-M.P., writing—original draft preparation; R.G.B., E.B., F.G., N.P. and D.-M.P., writing—review and
editing; N.P. conceived the visualization; F.G. supervised the work. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This research is the result of Transilvania University of Brasov and CeRVA Lab
from Ovidius University of Constanta teams’ common effort.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Rauschnabel, P.A.; Felix, R.; Hinsch, C.; Shahab, H.; Alt, F. What is XR? Towards a Framework for Augmented and Virtual Reality.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 133, 107289. [CrossRef]
2. Aggarwal, R.; Singhal, A. Augmented Reality and its effect on our life. In Proceedings of the 2019 9th International Conference on
Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), Uttar Pradesh, India, 10–11 January 2019; pp. 510–515.
3. Arena, F.; Collotta, M.; Pau, G.; Termine, F. An Overview of Augmented Reality. Computers 2022, 11, 28. [CrossRef]
4. Okanovic, V.; Ivkovic-Kihic, I.; Boskovic, D.; Mijatovic, B.; Prazina, I.; Skaljo, E.; Rizvic, S. Interaction in eXtended Reality
Applications for Cultural Heritage. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1241. [CrossRef]
5. Merchán, M.J.; Merchán, P.; Pérez, E. Good Practices in the Use of Augmented Reality for the Dissemination of Architectural
Heritage of Rural Areas. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2055. [CrossRef]
6. Boboc, R.G.; Duguleană, M.; Voinea, G.-D.; Postelnicu, C.-C.; Popovici, D.-M.; Carrozzino, M. Mobile Augmented Reality for
Cultural Heritage: Following the Footsteps of Ovid among Different Locations in Europe. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1167. [CrossRef]
7. Salleh, S.Z.; Bushroa, A.R. Bibliometric and content analysis on publications in digitization technology implementation in cultural
heritage for recent five years (2016–2021). Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2022, 25, e00225. [CrossRef]
8. Cieslik, E. 3D Digitization in Cultural Heritage Institutions Guidebook; National Museum of Dentistry: Baltimore, MD, USA„ 2021.
9. Poulopoulos, V.; Wallace, M. Digital Technologies and the Role of Data in Cultural Heritage: The Past, the Present, and the Future.
Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2022, 6, 73. [CrossRef]
10. Lampropoulos, G.; Keramopoulos, E.; Diamantaras, K. Enhancing the functionality of augmented reality using deep learning,
semantic web and knowledge graphs: A review. Vis. Inform. 2020, 4, 32–42. [CrossRef]
11. Vlachos, A.; Perifanou, M.; Economides, A.A. A review of ontologies for augmented reality cultural heritage applications. J. Cult.
Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2022. ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
12. Chatzigrigoriou, P.; Nikolakopoulou, V.; Vakkas, T.; Vosinakis, S.; Koutsabasis, P. Is architecture connected with intangible cultural
heritage? Reflections from the digital documentation of local architecture and interactive application design for the case of marble,
olive oil, and mastic heritage in three Aegean islands. Heritage 2021, 4, 664–689. [CrossRef]
13. Bekele, M.K.; Pierdicca, R.; Frontoni, E.; Malinverni, E.S.; Gain, J. A survey of augmented, virtual, and mixed reality for cultural
heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2018, 11, 1–36. [CrossRef]
14. Challenor, J.; Ma, M. A Review of Augmented Reality Applications for History Education and Heritage Visualisation. Multimodal
Technol. Interact. 2019, 3, 39. [CrossRef]
15. Sabri, F.N.M.; Khidzir, N.Z.; Ismail, A.R.; Mat, K.A. An exploratory study on mobile augmented reality (AR) application for
heritage content. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 2016, 4, 489–493. [CrossRef]
16. Sgambati, S.; Gargiulo, C. The evolution of urban competitiveness studies over the past 30 years. A bibliometric analysis. Cities
2022, 128, 103811. [CrossRef]
17. Atlasi, R.; Ramezani, A.; Tabatabaei-Malazy, O.; Alatab, S.; Oveissi, V.; Larijani, B. Scientometric assessment of scientific documents
published in 2020 on herbal medicines used for COVID-19. J. Herb. Med. 2022, 35, 100588. [CrossRef]
18. Munoz-Ausecha, C.; Ruiz-Rosero, J.; Ramirez-Gonzalez, G. RFID Applications and Security Review. Computation 2021, 9, 69.
[CrossRef]
19. Münster, S. Digital heritage as a scholarly field—Topics, researchers, and perspectives from a bibliometric point of view. J. Comput.
Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2019, 12, 1–27. [CrossRef]
20. Yulifar, L.; Widiaty, I.; Anggraini, D.N.; Nugraha, E.; Minggra, R.; Kurniaty, H.W. Digitalizing museums: A bibliometric study. J.
Eng. Sci. Technol. 2021, 16, 16–26.
21. van Ruymbeke, M.; Nofal, E.; Billen, R. 3D Digital Heritage and Historical Storytelling: Outcomes from the Interreg EMR Terra
Mosana Project. In Culture and Computing; Rauterberg, M., Ed.; HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2022; Volume 13324. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 20 of 25

22. Cisneros, L.; Ibanescu, M.; Keen, C.; Lobato-Calleros, O.; Niebla-Zatarain, J. Bibliometric Study of Family Business Succession Between
1939 and 2017: Mapping and Analyzing Authors’ Networks; Springer International Publishing: Budapest, Hungary, 2018; Volume 117,
ISBN 0123456789.
23. Ruiz-Rosero, J.; Ramirez-Gonzalez, G.; Viveros-Delgado, J. Software survey: ScientoPy, a scientometric tool for topics trend
analysis in scientific publications. Scientometrics 2019, 121, 1165–1188. [CrossRef]
24. Jarke, M.; Lenzerini, M.; Vassiliou, Y.; Vassiliadis, P. Fundamentals of Data Warehouses; Springer Science & Business Media:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; ISBN 978-3-662-05153-5.
25. VOSviewer—Visualizing Scientifc Landscapes. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 8 July 2022).
26. Cultural Heritage at Risk: United States. Available online: [Link]
history/arches-at-risk-cultural-heritage-education-series/xa0148fd6a60f2ff6:cultural-heritage-endangered-round-the-world/
a/cultural-heritage-at-risk-united-states (accessed on 20 June 2022).
27. Panou, C.; Ragia, L.; Dimelli, D.; Mania, K. Outdoors Mobile Augmented Reality Application Visualizing 3D Reconstructed
Historical Monuments. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory,
Applications and Management (GISTAM 2018), Porto, Portugal, 17–19 March 2018; pp. 59–67. [CrossRef]
28. Campi, M.; di Luggo, A.; Palomba, D.; Palomba, R. Digital surveys and 3D reconstructions for augmented accessibility of
archaeological heritage. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2019, 42, 205–212. [CrossRef]
29. Machidon, O.M.; Postelnicu, C.C.; Girbacia, F.S. 3D Reconstruction as a Service–Applications in Virtual Cultural Heritage. In
Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics; De Paolis, L., Mongelli, A., Eds.; AVR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 9769. [CrossRef]
30. Mongelli, M.; Chellini, G.; Migliori, S.; Perozziello, A.; Pierattini, S.; Puccini, M.; Cosma, A. Comparison and integration of
techniques for the study and valorisation of the Corsini Throne in Corsini Gallery in Roma. ACTA IMEKO 2021, 10, 40–46.
[CrossRef]
31. Noh, Z.; Sunar, M.S.; Pan, Z. A Review on Augmented Reality for Virtual Heritage System; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2009; pp. 50–61.
32. Gomes, L.; Bellon, O.R.P.; Silva, L. 3D reconstruction methods for digital preservation of cultural heritage: A survey. Pattern
Recognit. Lett. 2014, 50, 3–14. [CrossRef]
33. Portalés, C.; Lerma, J.L.; Pérez, C. Photogrammetry and augmented reality for cultural heritage applications. Photogramm. Rec.
2009, 24, 316–331. [CrossRef]
34. Putra, E.Y.; Wahyudi, A.K.; Dumingan, C. A proposed combination of photogrammetry, Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality
Headset for heritage visualization. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC),
Mataram, Indonesia, 28–29 October 2016; pp. 43–48. [CrossRef]
35. Fritsch, D.; Klein, M. 3D preservation of buildings–Reconstructing the past. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2018, 77, 9153–9170. [CrossRef]
36. Barrile, V.; Bilotta, G.; Meduri, G.M.; De Carlo, D.; Nunnar, A. Laser scanner technology, ground-penetrating radar and augmented
reality for the survey and recovery of artistic, archaeological and cultural heritage. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf.
Sci. 2017, 4, 123–127. [CrossRef]
37. Barrile, V.; Nunnari, A.; Ponterio, R.C. Laser scanner for the Architectural and Cultural Heritage and Applications for the
Dissemination of the 3D Model. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 223, 555–560. [CrossRef]
38. Scianna, A.; Gaglio, G.F.; Grima, R.; La Guardia, M. The virtualization of CH for historical reconstruction: The AR fruition of the
fountain of St. George square in Valletta (Malta). Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2020, 44, 143–149. [CrossRef]
39. Rodríguez-Gonzálvez, P.; Jimenez Fernandez-Palacios, B.; Muñoz-Nieto, Á.L.; Arias-Sanchez, P.; Gonzalez-Aguilera, D. Mobile
LiDAR system: New possibilities for the documentation and dissemination of large cultural heritage sites. Remote Sens. 2017,
9, 189. [CrossRef]
40. Van Nguyen, S.; Le, S.T.; Tran, M.K.; Tran, H.M. Reconstruction of 3D digital heritage objects for VR and AR applications. J. Inf.
Telecommun. 2021, 6, 254–269. [CrossRef]
41. Shih, N.J.; Diao, P.H.; Chen, Y. ARTS, an AR tourism system, for the integration of 3D scanning and smartphone AR in cultural
heritage tourism and pedagogy. Sensors 2019, 19, 3725. [CrossRef]
42. Blanco-Pons, S.; Carrión-Ruiz, B.; Lerma, J.L.; Villaverde, V. Design and implementation of an augmented reality application for
rock art visualization in Cova dels Cavalls (Spain). J. Cult. Herit. 2019, 39, 177–185. [CrossRef]
43. Cruz, D.R.; Sevilla, J.S.; San Gabriel, J.W.D.; Cruz, A.J.P.D.; Caselis, E.J.S. Design and Development of Augmented Reality (AR)
Mobile Application for Malolos’ Kameztizuhan (Malolos Heritage Town, Philippines). In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Games,
Entertainment, Media Conference (GEM), Galway, Ireland, 15–17 August 2018; pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]
44. Pietroni, E. An augmented experiences in cultural heritage through mobile devices: “Matera tales of a city” project. In Proceedings
of the 2012 18th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia, Milan, Italy, 2–5 September 2012; pp. 117–124.
45. Sebastiani, A. Digital Artifacts and Landscapes. Experimenting with Placemaking at the Impero Project. Heritage 2021, 4, 281–303.
[CrossRef]
46. Malik, U.S.; Tissen, L.N.; Vermeeren, A.P. 3D Reproductions of Cultural Heritage Artefacts: Evaluation of significance and
experience. Stud. Digit. Herit. 2021, 5, 1–29. [CrossRef]
47. Girbacia, F.; Butnariu, S.; Orman, A.P.; Postelnicu, C.C. Virtual restoration of deteriorated religious heritage objects using
augmented reality technologies. Eur. J. Sci. Theol. 2013, 9, 223–231.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 21 of 25

48. Boboc, R.G.; Gîrbacia, F.; Duguleană, M.; Tavčar, A. A handheld Augmented Reality to revive a demolished Reformed Church
from Braşov. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference-Laval Virtual, Laval, France, 22–24 March 2017;
Volume 2017, pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
49. Parfenov, V.; Igoshin, S.; Masaylo, D.; Orlov, A.; Kuliashou, D. Use of 3D Laser Scanning and Additive Technologies for
Reconstruction of Damaged and Destroyed Cultural Heritage Objects. Quantum Beam Sci. 2022, 6, 11. [CrossRef]
50. Abate, A.F.; Barra, S.; Galeotafiore, G.; Díaz, C.; Aura, E.; Sánchez, M.; Vendrell, E. An Augmented Reality Mobile App for
Museums: Virtual Restoration of a Plate of Glass. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Digital Heritage, EuroMed
2018, Nicosia, Cyprus, 29 October–3 November 2018; Volume 11196 LNCS, pp. 539–547. [CrossRef]
51. Voinea, G.D.; Girbacia, F.; Postelnicu, C.C.; Marto, A. Exploring cultural heritage using augmented reality through Google’s Project
Tango and ARCore. In VR Technologies in Cultural Heritage; Duguleană, M., Carrozzino, M., Gams, M., Tanea, I., Eds.; VRTCH 2018.
Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 904, pp. 93–106. [CrossRef]
52. UNESCO. The Concept of Digital Heritage. Available online: [Link]
heritage/concept-digital-heritage (accessed on 20 June 2022).
53. Balduini, M.; Celino, I.; Dell’Aglio, D.; Della Valle, E.; Huang, Y.; Lee, T.; Kim, S.-H.; Tresp, V. BOTTARI: An augmented reality
mobile application to deliver personalized and location-based recommendations by continuous analysis of social media streams.
J. Web Semant. 2012, 16, 33–41. [CrossRef]
54. Tan, K.L.; Lim, C.K. Digital heritage gamification: An augmented-virtual walkthrough to learn and explore historical places. In
Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, Bikaner, India, 24–25 November 2017; Volume 1891, p. 020139. [CrossRef]
55. Carlton, N.R. Digital culture and art therapy. Arts Psychother. 2014, 41, 41–45. [CrossRef]
56. Zimmer, A.; Wang, N.; Ibach, M.K.; Fehlmann, B.; Schicktanz, N.S.; Bentz, D.; Michael, T.; Papassotiropoulos, A.; de Quervain,
D.J.F. Effectiveness of a smartphone-based, augmented reality exposure app to reduce fear of spiders in real-life: A randomized
controlled trial. J. Anxiety Disord. 2021, 82, 102442. [CrossRef]
57. Eshuis, L.V.; van Gelderen, M.J.; van Zuiden, M.; Nijdam, M.J.; Vermetten, E.; Olff, M.; Bakker, A. Efficacy of immersive PTSD
treatments: A systematic review of virtual and augmented reality exposure therapy and a meta-analysis of virtual reality exposure
therapy. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2021, 143, 516–527. [CrossRef]
58. Hilty, D.M.; Randhawa, K.; Maheu, M.M.; McKean, A.J.; Pantera, R.; Mishkind, M.C.; Rizzo, A. A review of telepresence, virtual
reality, and augmented reality applied to clinical care. J. Technol. Behav. Sci. 2020, 5, 178–205. [CrossRef]
59. Jacquemin, C.; Caye, V.; Luca, L.D.; Favre-Brun, A. Genius Loci: Digital heritage augmentation for immersive performance. Int. J.
Arts Technol. 2014, 7, 223–246. [CrossRef]
60. Comunità, M.; Gerino, A.; Lim, V.; Picinali, L. Design and Evaluation of a Web- and Mobile-Based Binaural Audio Platform for
Cultural Heritage. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1540. [CrossRef]
61. Ch’ng, E.; Cai, S.; Leow, F.-T.; Zhang, T.E. Adoption and use of emerging cultural technologies in China’s museums. J. Cult. Herit.
2019, 37, 170–180. [CrossRef]
62. Patti, I. Standard Cataloguing of Augmented Objects for a Design Museum. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 1, 012054.
[CrossRef]
63. Rizvić, S.; Bošković, D.; Okanović, V.; Kihić, I.I.; Prazina, I.; Mijatović, B. Time Travel to the Past of Bosnia and Herzegovina
through Virtual and Augmented Reality. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3711. [CrossRef]
64. Chang, Y.-S. Applying the ARCS Motivation Theory for the Assessment of AR Digital Media Design Learning Effectiveness.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12296. [CrossRef]
65. Duguleană, M. eHERITAGE Project—Building a Cultural Heritage Excellence Center in the Eastern Europe. In Proceedings of the
Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation, Preservation, and Protection. EuroMed 2018, Nicosia, Cyprus,
29 October–3 November 2018; Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 11197. [CrossRef]
66. Laudazi, A.; Boccaccini, R. Augmented museums through mobile apps. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Horizon 2020 and
Creative Europe vs. Digital Heritage: A European Projects Crossover, Flash News Co-Located with the International Conference
Museums and the We 2014, Florence, Italy, 18 February 2014; Volume 1336, pp. 12–17, ISSN 1613-0073.
67. Partarakis, N.; Zidianakis, E.; Antona, M.; Stephanidis, C. Art and Coffee in the Museum. In Distributed, Ambient, and Pervasive
Interactions; Streitz, N., Markopoulos, P., Eds.; DAPI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,
2015; Volume 9189, pp. 370–381. [CrossRef]
68. Teneketzis, A. Exploring the emerging digital scene in Art History and museum practice. Esboços Histórias Contextos Globais 2020,
27, 187–206. [CrossRef]
69. Silva, M.; Teixeira, L. Developing an eXtended Reality platform for Immersive and Interactive Experiences for Cultural Heritage:
Serralves Museum and Coa Archeologic Park. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and
Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), Recife, Brazil, 9–13 November 2020; pp. 300–302. [CrossRef]
70. Kallergis, G.; Christoulakis, M.; Diakakis, A.; Ioannidis, M.; Paterakis, I.; Manoudaki, N.; Liapi, M.; Oungrinis, K.A. Open City
Museum: Unveiling the Cultural Heritage of Athens Through an-Augmented Reality Based-Time Leap. In Proceedings of the
Culture and Computing, 8th International Conference, C&C 2020, Held as Part of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII
2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–24 July 2020; pp. 156–171. [CrossRef]
71. Kyriakou, P.; Hermon, S. Can I touch this? Using natural interaction in a museum augmented reality system. Digit. Appl. Archaeol.
Cult. Herit. 2019, 12, e00088. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 22 of 25

72. Nisi, V.; Cesario, V.; Nunes, N. Augmented reality museum’s gaming for digital natives: Haunted encounters in the Carvalhal’s
palace. In Entertainment Computing and Serious Games; Van der Spek, E., Göbel, S., Do, E.L., Clua, E., Baalsrud Hauge, J., Eds.;
ICEC-JCSG 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland„ 2019; Volume 11863, pp. 28–41. [CrossRef]
73. Lee, J.; Lee, H.K.; Jeong, D.; Lee, J.; Kim, T.; Lee, J. Developing Museum Education Content: AR Blended Learning. Int. J. Art Des.
Educ. 2021, 40, 473–491. [CrossRef]
74. May, P.M.; Schmidt, W.; Vlachopoulos, D. The Use of Augmented Reality (AR) In Museum Education: A Systematic Literature
Review. In Proceedings of the 14th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, 2–4 March
2020; pp. 3179–3186.
75. Partarakis, N.; Antona, M.; Zidianakis, E.; Stephanidis, C. Adaptation and Content Personalization in the Context of Multi User
Museum Exhibits. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Advanced Visual Interfaces for Cultural Heritage (AVI*CH 2016), Bari,
Italy, 7–10 June 2016; pp. 5–10.
76. Rahaman, H.; Champion, E.; Bekele, M. From photo to 3D to mixed reality: A complete workflow for cultural heritage visualisation
and experience. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2019, 13, e00102. [CrossRef]
77. Hoang, T.N.; Cox, T.N. Alternating reality: An interweaving narrative of physical and virtual cultural exhibitions. Presence 2018,
26, 402–419. [CrossRef]
78. Basaraba, N.; Conlan, O.; Edmond, J.; Arnds, P. Digital narrative conventions in heritage trail mobile apps. New Rev. Hypermedia
Multimed. 2019, 25, 1–30. [CrossRef]
79. Baker, E.; Bakar, J.A.; Zulkifli, A. A Conceptual Model of Mobile Augmented Reality for Hearing Impaired Museum Visitors’
Engagement. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2020, 14, 79–96. [CrossRef]
80. Partarakis, N.; Zabulis, X.; Foukarakis, M.; Moutsaki, M.; Zidianakis, E.; Patakos, A.; Tasiopoulou, E. Supporting sign language
narrations in the museum. Heritage 2022, 5, 1–20. [CrossRef]
81. Trunfio, M.; Campana, S.; Magnelli, A. Measuring the impact of functional and experiential mixed reality elements on a museum
visit. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1990–2008. [CrossRef]
82. Münzer, M.G. How can augmented reality improve the user experience of digital products and engagement with cultural heritage
outside the museum space? IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 949, 012040. [CrossRef]
83. Popovici, D.-M.; Iordache, D.; Comes, R.; Neamt, u, C.G.D.; Băutu, E. Interactive Exploration of Virtual Heritage by Means of
Natural Gestures. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4452. [CrossRef]
84. tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T.H. Value of augmented reality at cultural heritage sites: A stakeholder approach. J. Destin. Mark. Manag.
2017, 6, 110–117. [CrossRef]
85. Han, D.-I.D.; Tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T. Augmented Reality Smart Glasses (ARSG) visitor adoption in cultural tourism. Leis. Stud.
2019, 38, 618–633. [CrossRef]
86. Litvak, E.; Kuflik, T. Enhancing cultural heritage outdoor experience with augmented-reality smart glasses. Pers. Ubiquitous
Comput. 2020, 24, 873–886. [CrossRef]
87. Mason, M. The MIT museum glassware prototype: Visitor experience exploration for designing smart glasses. J. Comput. Cult.
Herit. (JOCCH) 2016, 9, 1–28. [CrossRef]
88. Trunfio, M.; Campana, S. A visitors’ experience model for mixed reality in the museum. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1053–1058.
[CrossRef]
89. Han, D.-I.; tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T. User experience model for augmented reality applications in urban heritage tourism. J. Herit.
Tour. 2018, 13, 46–61. [CrossRef]
90. Pedersen, I.; Gale, N.; Mirza-Babei, P.; Reid, S. More than meets the eye: The benefits of augmented reality and holographic
displays for digital cultural heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2017, 10, 1–15. [CrossRef]
91. Koo, S.; Kim, J.; Kim, C.; Cha, H.S. Development of an augmented reality tour guide for a cultural heritage site. J. Comput. Cult.
Herit. (JOCCH) 2019, 12, 1–24. [CrossRef]
92. Damala, A.; Ruthven, I.; Hornecker, E. The MUSETECH model: A comprehensive evaluation framework for museum technology.
J. Comput. Cult. Herit. (JOCCH) 2019, 12, 1–22. [CrossRef]
93. Damala, A.; Hornecker, E.; Van der Vaart, M.; van Dijk, D.; Ruthven, I. The Loupe: Tangible augmented reality for learning to
look at Ancient Greek Art. Mediterr. Archaeol. Archaeom. 2016, 16, 73–85. [CrossRef]
94. Zou, N.; Gong, Q.; Zhou, J.; Chen, P.; Kong, W.; Chai, C. Value-based model of user interaction design for virtual museum. CCF
Trans. Pervasive Comput. Interact. 2021, 3, 112–128. [CrossRef]
95. Bozzelli, G.; Raia, A.; Ricciardi, S.; De Nino, M.; Barile, N.; Perrella, M.; Tramontano, M.; Pagano, P.; Palombini, A. An integrated
VR/AR framework for user-centric interactive experience of cultural heritage: The ArkaeVision project. Digit. Appl. Archaeol.
Cult. Herit. 2019, 15, e00124. [CrossRef]
96. Duguleana, M.; Brodi, R.; Girbacia, F.; Postelnicu, C.; Machidon, O.; Carrozzino, M. Time-travelling with mobile augmented reality:
A case study on the piazza dei miracoli. In Proceedings of the Digital Heritage: Progress in Cultural Heritage: Documentation,
Preservation, and Protection: 6th International Conference, EuroMed 2016, Nicosia, Cyprus, 31 October–5 November 2016;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 902–912. [CrossRef]
97. Besbes, B.; Collette, S.N.; Tamaazousti, M.; Bourgeois, S.; Gay-Bellile, V. An interactive augmented reality system: A prototype
for industrial maintenance training applications. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and
Augmented Reality (ISMAR), Bari, Italy, 5–8 November 2012; pp. 269–270. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 23 of 25

98. Liu, E.; Liu, C.; Yang, Y.; Guo, S.; Cai, S. Design and Implementation of an Augmented Reality Application with an English Learn-
ing Lesson. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering
(TALE), Wollongong, Australia, 4–7 December 2018; pp. 494–499.
99. tom Dieck, M.C.; Jung, T.H.; Tom Dieck, D. Enhancing art gallery visitors’ learning experience using wearable augmented reality:
Generic learning outcomes perspective. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 2014–2034. [CrossRef]
100. Novotný, M.; Lacko, J.; Samuelčík, M. Applications of multi-touch augmented reality system in education and presentation of
virtual heritage. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 25, 231–235. [CrossRef]
101. Joo-Nagata, J.; Abad, F.M.; Giner, J.G.B.; García-Peñalvo, F.J. Augmented reality and pedestrian navigation through its im-
plementation in m-learning and e-learning: Evaluation of an educational program in Chile. Comput. Educ. 2017, 111, 1–17.
[CrossRef]
102. Angelopoulou, A.; Economou, D.; Bouki, V.; Psarrou, A.; Jin, L.; Pritchard, C.; Kolyda, F. Mobile augmented reality for cultural
heritage. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Wireless Middleware, Operating Systems, and Applications,
London, UK, 22–24 June 2011; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 15–22. [CrossRef]
103. Etxeberria, A.I.; Asensio, M.; Vicent, N.; Cuenca, J.M. Mobile devices: A tool for tourism and learning at archaeological sites. Int.
J. Web Based Communities 2012, 8, 57–72. [CrossRef]
104. Mortara, M.; Catalano, C.E.; Bellotti, F.; Fiucci, G.; Houry-Panchetti, M.; Petridis, P. Learning cultural heritage by serious games. J.
Cult. Herit. 2014, 15, 318–325. [CrossRef]
105. Christopoulos, D.; Mavridis, P.; Andreadis, A.; Karigiannis, J.N. Using virtual environments to tell the story: The battle of
Thermopylae. In Proceedings of the 2011 Third International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications,
Athens, Greece, 4–6 May 2011; pp. 84–91. [CrossRef]
106. Ibañez-Etxeberria, A.; Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Fontal, O.; García-Ceballos, S. Virtual environments and augmented reality applied
to heritage education. An evaluative study. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2352. [CrossRef]
107. Fontal, O.; García-Ceballos, S.; Arias Martínez, B.; Arias González, V. Assessing the Quality of Heritage Education Programs:
Construction and Calibration of the Q-Edutage Scale. Rev. Psicodidác. 2019, 24, 31–38. [CrossRef]
108. González Vargas, J.C.; Fabregat, R.; Carrillo-Ramos, A.; Jové, T. Survey: Using Augmented Reality to Improve Learning Motivation
in Cultural Heritage Studies. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 897. [CrossRef]
109. Tzima, S.; Styliaras, G.; Bassounas, A. Augmented reality applications in education: Teachers point of view. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 99.
[CrossRef]
110. Fenu, C.; Pittarello, F. Svevo tour: The design and the experimentation of an augmented reality application for engaging visitors
of a literary museum. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2018, 114, 20–35. [CrossRef]
111. Camurri, A.; Volpe, G. The intersection of art and technology. IEEE MultiMedia 2016, 23, 10–17. [CrossRef]
112. Bekele, M.K.; Champion, E. A Comparison of Immersive Realities and Interaction Methods: Cultural Learning in Virtual Heritage.
Front. Robot. AI 2019, 6, 91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
113. Rome Reborn. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 21 June 2022).
114. Frischer, B.; Abernathy, D.; Giuliani, F.C.; Scott, R.T.; Ziemssen, H. A New Digital Model of the Roman Forum. J. Rom.
Archaeol. 2006, 163–182. Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Supplementary Series Number 61. ISSN 1963-4304. Available online:
[Link] (accessed on 22 June 2022).
115. Gaitatzes, A.; Christopoulos, D.; Voulgari, A.; Roussou, M. Hellenic Cultural Heritage through Immersive Virtual Archaeology.
In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia (VSMM’00), Ogaki, Japan, 3–6 October
2000; pp. 57–64.
116. Vlahakis, V.; Ioannidis, M.; Karigiannis, J.; Tsotros, M.; Gounaris, M.; Stricker, D.; Gleue, T.; Daehne, P.; Almeida, L. Archeoguide:
An augmented reality guide for archaeolog sites. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2002, 22, 52–60. [CrossRef]
117. Cruz-Neira, C.; Sandin, D.J.; DeFanti, T.A.; Kenyon, R.V.; Hart, J.C. The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual
environment. Commun. ACM 1992, 35, 64–72. [CrossRef]
118. Marasco, A.; Buonincontri, P.; van Niekerk, M.; Orlowski, M.; Okumus, F. Exploring the role of next-generation virtual
technologies in destination marketing. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 9, 138–148. [CrossRef]
119. Czernuszenko, M.; Pape, D.; Sandin, D.; DeFanti, T.; Dawe, G.L.; Brown, M.D. The ImmersaDesk and Infinity Wall projection-
based virtual reality displays. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 1997, 31, 46–49. [CrossRef]
120. Jung, T.H.; Lee, H.; Chung, N.; Tom Dieck, M.C. Cross-cultural differences in adopting mobile augmented reality at cultural
heritage tourism sites. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1621–1645. [CrossRef]
121. Jung, K.; Nguyen, V.T.; Piscarac, D.; Yoo, S.C. Meet the virtual jeju dol harubang—The mixed VR/Ar application for cultural
immersion in Korea’s main heritage. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2020, 9, 367. [CrossRef]
122. Bec, A.; Moyle, B.; Timms, K.M.; Schaffer, V.; Skavronskaya, L.; Little, C. Management of immersive heritage tourism experiences:
A conceptual model. Tour. Manag. 2019, 72, 117–120. [CrossRef]
123. Garau, C. From Territory to Smartphone: Smart Fruition of Cultural Heritage for Dynamic Tourism Development. Plan. Pract.
Res. 2014, 29, 238–255. [CrossRef]
124. Garau, C.; Ilardi, E. The “Non-Places” Meet the “Places”: Virtual Tours on Smartphones for the Enhancement of Cultural Heritage.
J. Urban Technol. 2014, 21, 79–91. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 24 of 25

125. González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Díaz-Fernández, M.C.; Pino-Mejías, M.Á. The impact of virtual reality technology on tourists’
experience: A textual data analysis. Soft. Comput. 2020, 24, 13879–13892. [CrossRef]
126. Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceed-
ings of the MindTrek ’11: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media
Environments, Tampere, Finland, 28–30 September 2011; pp. 9–15. [CrossRef]
127. Landers, R.; Auer, E.; Collmus, A.; Armstrong, M. Gamification science, its history and future: Definitions and a research agenda.
Simul. Gaming 2018, 49, 315–337. [CrossRef]
128. Growthengineering. The Ultimate Definition of Gamification (with 6 Real World Examples). Available online: [Link]
[Link]/definition-of-gamification/ (accessed on 22 June 2022).
129. Xu, F.; Buhalis, D.; Weber, J. Serious games and the gamification of tourism. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 244–256. [CrossRef]
130. Ferdani, D.; Fanini, B.; Piccioli, M.C.; Carboni, F.; Vigliarolo, P. 3D reconstruction and validation of historical background for
immersive VR applications and games: The case study of the Forum of Augustus in Rome. J. Cult. Herit. 2020, 43, 129–143.
[CrossRef]
131. Liarokapis, F.; Petridis, P.; Andrews, D.; De Freitas, S. Multimodal serious games technologies for cultural heritage. In Mixed
Reality and Gamification for Cultural Heritage; Ioannides, M., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Papagiannakis, G., Eds.; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2017; pp. 371–392. [CrossRef]
132. Butnariu, S.; Duguleana, M.; Brondi, R.; Florin, G.; Postelnicu, C.; Carrozzino, M. An interactive haptic system for experiencing
traditional archery. Acta Polytech. Hung. 2018, 15, 185. [CrossRef]
133. Ceccacci, S.; Generosi, A.; Leopardi, A.; Mengoni, M.; Mandorli, A.F. The role of haptic feedback and gamification in virtual
museum systems. ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2021, 14, 1–14. [CrossRef]
134. Augello, A.; Infantino, I.; Pilato, G.; Vitale, G. Site experience enhancement and perspective in cultural heritage fruition—A
survey on new technologies and methodologies based on a “four-pillars” approach. Future Internet 2021, 13, 92. [CrossRef]
135. Hammady, R.; Ma, M.; Temple, N. Augmented Reality and Gamification in Heritage Museums; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2016; Volume 9894, pp. 181–187.
136. Paliokas, I.; Patenidis, A.T.; Mitsopoulou, E.E.; Tsita, C.; Pehlivanides, G.; Karyati, E.; Tsafaras, S.; Stathopoulos, E.A.; Kokkalas,
A.; Diplaris, S.; et al. A Gamified Augmented Reality Application for Digital Heritage and Tourism. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7868.
[CrossRef]
137. Slavec, A.; Sajincic, N.; Starman, V. Use of smartphone cameras and other applications while traveling to sustain outdoor cultural
heritage. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7312. [CrossRef]
138. Tzima, S.; Styliaras, G.; Bassounas, A. Revealing hidden local cultural heritage through a serious escape game in outdoor settings.
Information 2021, 12, 10. [CrossRef]
139. Bujari, A.; Ciman, M.; Gaggi, O. Using gamification to discover cultural heritage locations from geo-tagged photos. Pers.
Ubiquitous Comput. 2017, 21, 235–252. [CrossRef]
140. Vlizos, S.; Sharamyeva, J.-A.; Kotsopoulos, K. Interdisciplinary Design of an Educational Applications Development Platform in a 3D
Environment Focused on Cultural Heritage Tourism; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 79–96.
141. Evangelidis, K.; Sylaiou, S.; Papadopoulos, T. Mergin’ Mode: Mixed Reality and Geoinformatics for Monument Demonstration.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3826. [CrossRef]
142. Vert, S.; Andone, D.; Ternauciuc, A.; Mihaescu, V.; Rotaru, O.; Mocofan, M.; Orhei, C.; Vasiu, R. User evaluation of a multi-platform
digital storytelling concept for cultural heritage. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2678. [CrossRef]
143. Zhao, Z.J.; Ma, X.J. ShadowPlay2.5D: A 360-degree video authoring tool for immersive appreciation of classical Chinese poetry.
ACM J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2020, 13, 1–20. [CrossRef]
144. Jofresa, R.S.; Xirau, M.T.; Ereddam, H.E.B.; Vicente, O. Gamification and Cultural Heritage; UAB Research Park: Barcelona,
Spain, 2019.
145. Tisserand, Y.; Magnenat-Thalmann, N.; Unzueta, L.; Linaza, M.T.; Ahmadi, A.; O’connor, N.E.; Zioulis, N.; Zarpalas, D.; Daras,
P. Preservation and gamification of traditional sports. In Mixed Reality and Gamification for Cultural Heritage; Ioannides, M.,
Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Papagiannakis, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 421–446.
[CrossRef]
146. Hauser, H.; Beisswenger, C.; Partarakis, N.; Zabulis, X.; Adami, I.; Zidianakis, E.; Patakos, A.; Patsiouras, N.; Karuzaki, E.;
Foukarakis, M.; et al. Multimodal narratives for the presentation of silk heritage in the museum. Heritage 2022, 5, 461–487.
[CrossRef]
147. Marto, A.; Gonçalves, A.; Melo, M.; Bessa, M. A survey of multisensory vr and ar applications for cultural heritage. Comput.
Graph. 2022, 102, 426–440. [CrossRef]
148. UNESCO. Intangible Cultural Heritage. Available online: [Link] (accessed
on 22 June 2022).
149. Lu, W.; Wang, M.; Chen, H. Research on Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection Based on Augmented Reality Technology. J. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 2020, 1574, 012026. [CrossRef]
150. Zhao, Z. Digital protection method of intangible cultural heritage based on augmented reality technology. In Proceedings of
the 2017 International Conference on Robots & Intelligent System (ICRIS), Huai An, China, 15–16 October 2017; pp. 135–138.
[CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9859 25 of 25

151. Yang, T.; Zhao, R. Research on Combination of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences ans Humanities, Moscow, Russia, 14–15 June 2017; Book
Series: Advances in Social Science Education and Humanities Research, Tretyakova. Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2017; Volume 124, pp. 536–538.
152. Khan, M. MUSE: Understanding traditional dances. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Minneapolis, MN, USA,
29 March–2 April 2014; pp. 173–174. [CrossRef]
153. Ziagkas, E.; Stylianidis, P.; Loukovitis, A.; Zilidou, V.; Lilou, O.; Mavropoulou, A.; Douka, S. Greek traditional dances 3d motion
capturing and a proposed method for identification through rhythm pattern analyses (terpsichore project). In Strategic Innovative
Marketing and Tourism: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Kavoura, A., Kefallonitis, E., Theodoridis, P., Eds.; Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 657–665. [CrossRef]
154. Wen, Y.; Chen, J. Intangible cultural heritage display using augmented reality technology of Xtion PRO interaction. Int. J. Simul.
Syst. Sci. Technol. 2016, 17, 29.1–29.4. [CrossRef]
155. Xie, X.; Tang, X. The application of augmented reality technology in digital display for intangible cultural heritage: The case of
cantonese furniture. In Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction in Context; Kurosu, M., Ed.; HCI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 10902, pp. 334–343. [CrossRef]
156. Laštovička-Medin, G. The Materiality of Interaction & Intangible Heritage: Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 2019 8th
Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO), Budva, Montenero, 10–14 June 2019; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
157. Huang, W.; Xiang, H.; Li, S. The application of augmented reality and unity 3D in interaction with intangible cultural heritage.
Evol. Intell. 2019, 12, 1–9. [CrossRef]
158. Viinikkala, L.; Yli-Seppälä, L.; Heimo, O.I.; Helle, S.; Härkänen, L.; Jokela, S.; Lehtonen, T. Reforming the representation of the
reformation: Mixed reality narratives in communicating tangible and intangible heritage of the protestant reformation in Finland.
In Proceedings of the 2016 22nd International Conference on Virtual System & Multimedia (VSMM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
17–21 October 2016; pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]
159. Europeana: Discover Inspiring European Cultural Heritage. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 6
July 2022).