\section{Principles and Capabilities of AR}
\label{augmented_reality}

The first \AR headset was invented by \textcite{sutherland1968headmounted}: With the technology available at the time, it was already capable of displaying \VOs at a fixed point in space in real time, giving the user the illusion that the content was present in the room.
Fixed to the ceiling, the headset displayed a stereoscopic (one image per eye) perspective projection of the virtual content on a transparent screen, taking into account the user's position, and thus already following the interaction loop presented in \figref[introduction]{interaction-loop}.

%\begin{subfigs}{sutherland1968headmounted}{Photos of the first \AR system~\cite{sutherland1968headmounted}. }[
%        \item The \AR headset.
%        \item Wireframe \ThreeD \VOs were displayed registered in the real environment (as if there were part of it).
%    ]
%    \subfigsheight{45mm}
%    \subfig{sutherland1970computer3}
%    \subfig{sutherland1970computer2}
%\end{subfigs}


\subsection{What is Augmented Reality?}
\label{what_is_ar}

\subsubsection{A Definition}
\label{ar_definition}

The system of \cite{sutherland1968headmounted} already fulfilled the first formal definition of \AR, proposed by \textcite{azuma1997survey} in the first survey of the domain:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*)]
    \item combine real and virtual,
    \item be interactive in real time, and
    \item register real and virtual\footnotemark.
\end{enumerate}

%\footnotetext{There quite confusion in the literature and in (because of) the industry about the terms \AR and \MR. The term \MR is very often used as a synonym of \AR, or a version of \AR that enables an interaction with the virtual content. The title of this section refers to the title of the highly cited paper by \textcite{speicher2019what} that examines this debate.}

\footnotetext{This third characteristic has been slightly adapted to use the version of \textcite{marchand2016pose}, the original definition was: \enquote{registered in \ThreeD}.}

Each of these characteristics is essential: the real-virtual combination distinguishes \AR from \VR, a movie with integrated digital content is not interactive and a \TwoD overlay like an image filter is not registered.
There are also two key aspects to this definition: it does not focus on technology or method, but on the user's perspective of the system experience, and it does not specify a particular human sense, \ie it can be auditory~\cite{yang2022audio}, haptic~\cite{bhatia2024augmenting}, or even olfactory~\cite{brooks2021stereosmell} or gustatory~\cite{brooks2023taste}.
Yet, most of the research have focused on visual augmentations, and the term \AR (without a prefix) is almost always understood as \v-\AR.

%For example, \textcite{milgram1994taxonomy} proposed a taxonomy of \MR experiences based on the degree of mixing real and virtual environments, and \textcite{skarbez2021revisiting} revisited this taxonomy to include the user's perception of the experience.


\subsubsection{Applications}
\label{ar_applications}

Advances in technology, research and development have enabled many usages of \AR, including medicine, education, industrial, navigation, collaboration and entertainment applications~\cite{dey2018systematic}.
For example, \AR can help surgeons to visualize \ThreeD images of the brain overlaid on the patient's head prior or during surgery~\cite{watanabe2016transvisible} (\figref{watanabe2016transvisible}), or improve the learning of students with complex concepts and phenomena such as optics or chemistry~\cite{bousquet2024reconfigurable}.
It can also guide workers in complex tasks, such as assembly, maintenance or verification~\cite{hartl2013mobile} (\figref{hartl2013mobile}), reinvent the way we interact with desktop computers~\cite{lee2013spacetop} (\figref{lee2013spacetop}), or can create complete new forms of gaming or tourism experiences~\cite{roo2017inner} (\figref{roo2017inner}).
Most of (visual) \AR/\VR experience can now be implemented with commercially available hardware and software solutions, in particular for tracking, rendering and display.
Yet, the user experience in \AR is still highly dependent on the display used.

\begin{subfigs}{ar_applications}{Examples of \AR applications. }[
        \item Neurosurgery \AR visualization of the brain on a patient's head~\cite{watanabe2016transvisible}.
        %\item HOBIT is a spatial, tangible \AR table simulating an optical bench for educational experimentations~\cite{bousquet2024reconfigurable}.
        \item \AR can interactively guide in document verification tasks by recognizing and comparing with virtual references~\cite{hartl2013mobile}.
        \item SpaceTop is transparent \AR desktop computer featuring direct hand manipulation of \ThreeD content~\cite{lee2013spacetop}.
        \item Inner Garden is a spatial \AR zen garden made of real sand visually augmented to create a mini world that can be reshaped by hand~\cite{roo2017inner}.
    ]
    \subfigsheight{41mm}
    \subfig{watanabe2016transvisible}
    \subfig{hartl2013mobile}
    \subfig{lee2013spacetop}
    \subfig{roo2017inner}
\end{subfigs}


\subsubsection{AR Displays and Perception}
\label{ar_displays}

\cite{bimber2005spatial}

\paragraph{Spatial Augmented Reality}

\paragraph{Window on World Displays}

\paragraph{Video See-Through Headsets}

Vergence-accommodation conflict.

Using a VST-AR headset have notable consequences, as the "real" view of the environment and the hand is actually a visual stream from a camera, which has a noticeable delay and lower quality (\eg resolution, frame rate, field of view) compared to the direct view of the real environment with OST-AR~\cite{macedo2023occlusion}.

\paragraph{Optical See-Through Headsets}

%Distances are underestimated~\cite{adams2022depth,peillard2019studying}.

% billinghurst2021grand


\subsubsection{Presence and Embodiment in AR}
\label{ar_presence_embodiment}

Despite the clear and acknowledged definition presented in \secref{ar_definition} and the viewpoint of this thesis that \AR and \VR are two type of \MR experience with different levels of mixing real and virtual environments, as presented in \secref[introduction]{visuo_haptic_augmentations}, there is still a debate on defining \AR and \MR as well as how to characterize and categorized such experiences~\cite{speicher2019what,skarbez2021revisiting}.

\paragraph{Presence}
\label{ar_presence}

Presence is one of the key concept to characterize a \VR experience.
\AR and \VR are both essentially illusions as the virtual content does not physically exist but is just digitally simulated and rendered to the user's perception through a user interface and the user's senses.
Such experience of disbelief suspension in \VR is what is called presence, and it can be decomposed into two dimensions: \PI and \PSI~\cite{slater2009place}.
\PI is the sense of the user of \enquote{being there} in the \VE (\figref{presence-vr}).
It emerges from the real time rendering of the \VE from the user's perspective: to be able to move around inside the \VE and look from different point of views.
\PSI is the illusion that the virtual events are really happening, even if the user knows that they are not real.
It doesn't mean that the virtual events are realistic, but that they are plausible and coherent with the user's expectations.
A third strong illusion in \VR is the \SoE, which is the illusion that the virtual body is one's own~\cite{slater2022separate,guy2023sense}.

The \AR presence is far less defined and studied than for \VR~\cite{tran2024survey}, but it will be useful to design, evaluate and discuss our contributions in the next chapters.
Thereby, \textcite{slater2022separate} proposed to invert \PI to what we can call \enquote{object illusion}, \ie the sense of the \VO to \enquote{feels here} in the \RE (\figref{presence-ar}).
As with VR, \VOs must be able to be seen from different angles by moving the head but also, this is more difficult, be consistent with the \RE, \eg occlude or be occluded by real objects~\cite{macedo2023occlusion}, cast shadows or reflect lights.
The \PSI can be applied to \AR as is, but the \VOs must additionally have knowledge of the \RE and react accordingly to it.
\textcite{skarbez2021revisiting} also named \PI for \AR as \enquote{immersion} and \PSI as \enquote{coherence}, and these terms will be used in the remainder of this thesis.

\begin{subfigs}{presence}{The sense of immersion in virtual and augmented environments. Adapted from \textcite{stevens2002putting}. }[
        \item Place Illusion (PI) is the sense of the user of \enquote{being there} in the \VE.
        \item Objet illusion is the sense of the \VO to \enquote{feels here} in the \RE.
    ]
    \subfigsheight{35mm}
    \subfig{presence-vr}
    \subfig{presence-ar}
\end{subfigs}

\paragraph{Embodiment}
\label{ar_embodiment}

As presence, \SoE in \AR is a recent topic and little is known about its perception on the user experience~\cite{genay2021virtual}.


\subsection{Direct Hand Manipulation in AR}
\label{ar_interaction}

Both \AR/\VR and haptic systems to render \VOs as visual or haptic sensations that are prenseted to the user's senses.
In turn, a user must be able to manipulate the \VOs and environments to complete the interaction loop (\figref[introduction]{interaction-loop}), \eg through a hand-held controller, a tangible object, or even directly with the hands.
An \emph{interaction technique} is then required to map the user input to actions on the \VE~\cite{laviola20173d}.


\subsubsection{User Interfaces and Interaction Techniques}
\label{interaction_techniques}

For a user to interact with a computer system, they first perceive the state of the system and then acts upon it through an input \UI.
Inputs interfaces can be either an \emph{active sensing}, physically held or worn device, such as a mouse, a touch screen, or a hand-held controller, or a \emph{passive sensing}, that does not require physical contact, such as eye trackers, voice recognition, or hand tracking.
The information gathered from the sensors by the \UI is then translated into actions within the computer system by an interaction technique.
For example, a cursor on a screen can be moved using either with a mouse or with the arrow keys on a keyboard, or a two-finger swipe on a touchscreen can be used to scroll or zoom an image.
Choosing useful and efficient \UIs and interaction techniques is crucial for the user experience and the tasks that can be performed within the system~\cite{laviola20173d}.

\fig[0.5]{interaction-technique}{An interaction technique map user inputs to actions within a computer system. Adapted from \textcite{billinghurst2005designing}.}


\subsubsection{Tasks with Virtual Environments}
\label{ve_tasks}

\textcite{laviola20173d} classify interaction techniques into three categories based on the tasks they enable users to perform: manipulation, navigation, and system control.
\textcite{hertel2021taxonomy} proposed a taxonomy of interaction techniques specifically for immersive \AR.

The \emph{manipulation tasks} are the most fundamental tasks in \AR and \VR systems, and the building blocks for more complex interactions.
\emph{Selection} is the identification or acquisition of a specific \VO, \eg pointing at a target as in \figref{grubert2015multifi}, touching a button with a finger, or grasping an object with a hand.
\emph{Positioning} and \emph{rotation} of a selected object are the change of its position and orientation in \ThreeD space respectively.
It is also common to \emph{resize} a \VO to change its size.
These three operations are geometric (rigid) manipulations of the object: they do not change its shape.

The \emph{navigation tasks} are the movements of the user within the \VE.
Travel is the control of the position and orientation of the viewpoint in the \VE, \eg physical walking, velocity control, or teleportation.
Wayfinding is the cognitive planning of the movement, such as path finding or route following (\figref{grubert2017pervasive}).

The \emph{system control tasks} are changes to the system state through commands or menus such as creating, deleting, or modifying \VOs, \eg as in \figref{roo2017onea}. It is also the input of text, numbers, or symbols.

\begin{subfigs}{interaction-techniques}{Interaction techniques in \AR. }[
        \item Spatial selection of virtual item of an extended display using a hand-held smartphone~\cite{grubert2015multifi}.
        \item Displaying as an overlay registered on the \RE the route to follow~\cite{grubert2017pervasive}.
        \item Virtual drawing on a tangible object with a hand-held pen~\cite{roo2017onea}.
        \item Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) techniques such as KinectFusion~\cite{newcombe2011kinectfusion} reconstruct the \RE in real time and enables to register the \VE in it.
    ]
    \subfigsheight{36mm}
    \subfig{grubert2015multifi}
    \subfig{grubert2017pervasive}
    \subfig{roo2017onea}
    \subfig{newcombe2011kinectfusion}
\end{subfigs}


\subsubsection{Reducing the Physical-Virtual Gap}
\label{physical-virtual-gap}

In \AR and \VR, the state of the system is displayed to the user as a \ThreeD spatial \VE.
In an immersive and portable \AR system, this \VE is experienced at a 1:1 scale and as an integral part of the \RE.
The rendering gap between the physical and virtual elements, as described on the interaction loop in \figref[introduction]{interaction-loop}, is thus experienced as very narrow or even not consciously perceived by the user.
This manifests as a sense of presence of the virtual, as described in \secref{ar_presence}.

As the physical-virtual rendering gap is reduced, we could expect a similar and seamless interaction with the \VE as with a physical environment, which \textcite{jacob2008realitybased} called \emph{reality based interactions}.
As of today, an immersive \AR system track itself with the user in \ThreeD, using tracking sensors and pose estimation algorithms~\cite{marchand2016pose}, \eg as in \figref{newcombe2011kinectfusion}.
It enables the \VE to be registered with the \RE and the user simply moves to navigate within the virtual content.
%This tracking and mapping of the user and \RE into the \VE is named the \enquote{extent of world knowledge} by \textcite{skarbez2021revisiting}, \ie to what extent the \AR system knows about the \RE and is able to respond to changes in it.
However, direct hand manipulation of virtual content is a challenge that requires specific interaction techniques~\cite{billinghurst2021grand}.
It is often achieved using two interaction techniques: \emph{tangible objects} and \emph{virtual hands}~\cite{billinghurst2015survey,hertel2021taxonomy}.


\subsubsection{Manipulating with Tangibles}
\label{ar_tangibles}

As \AR integrates visual virtual content into \RE perception, it can involve real surrounding objects as \UI: to visually augment them, \eg by superimposing visual textures~\cite{roo2017inner} (\figref{roo2017inner}), and to use them as physical proxies to support interaction with \VOs~\cite{ishii1997tangible}.
According to \textcite{billinghurst2005designing}, each \VO is coupled to a tangible object, and the \VO is physically manipulated through the tangible object, providing a direct, efficient and seamless interaction with both the real and virtual content.
This is a technique similar to mapping a physical mouse movement to a virtual cursor on a screen.

Methods have been developed to automatically pair and adapt the \VOs to render with available tangibles of similar shape and size~\cite{hettiarachchi2016annexing,jain2023ubitouch} (\figref{jain2023ubitouch}).
The issue with these \enquote{space-multiplexed} interfaces is the high number and variety of tangibles required.
An alternative is to use a single \enquote{universal} tangible object like a hand-held controller, such as a cube~\cite{issartel2016tangible} or a sphere~\cite{englmeier2020tangible}.
These \enquote{time-multiplexed} interfaces require interaction techniques that allow the user to pair the tangible with any \VO, \eg by placing the tangible into the \VO and pressing the fingers~\cite{issartel2016tangible} (\figref{issartel2016tangible}), similar to a real grasp (\secref{grasp_types}).

Still, the virtual visual rendering and the tangible haptic sensations can be inconsistent.
Especially in \OST-\AR, as the \VOs are slightly transparent allowing the paired tangibles to be seen through them.
In a pick-and-place task with tangibles of different shapes, a difference in size~\cite{kahl2021investigation} (\figref{kahl2021investigation}) and shape~\cite{kahl2023using} (\figref{kahl2023using}) with the \VOs does not affect user performance or presence, and that small variations (\percent{\sim 10} for size) were not even noticed by the users.
This suggests the feasibility of using simplified tangibles in \AR whose spatial properties (\secref{spatial_properties}) abstract those of the \VOs.
Similarly, we described in \secref{tactile_rendering} how a material property (\secref{object_properties}) of a touched tangible can be modified using wearable haptic devices~\cite{detinguy2018enhancing,salazar2020altering}: It could be used to render coherent visuo-haptic material perceptions directly touched with the hand in \AR.

\begin{subfigs}{ar_applications}{Manipulating \VOs with tangibles. }[
        \item Ubi-Touch paired the movements and screw interaction of a virtual drill with a real vaporizer held by the user~\cite{jain2023ubitouch}.
        \item A tangible cube that can be moved into the \VE and used to grasp and manipulate \VOs~\cite{issartel2016tangible}.
        \item Size and
        \item shape difference between a tangible and a \VO is acceptable for manipulation in \AR~\cite{kahl2021investigation,kahl2023using}.
    ]
    \subfigsheight{37.5mm}
    \subfig{jain2023ubitouch}
    \subfig{issartel2016tangible}
    \subfig{kahl2021investigation}
    \subfig{kahl2023using}
\end{subfigs}


\subsubsection{Manipulating with Virtual Hands}
\label{ar_virtual_hands}

Natural UI allow the user to use their body movements directly as inputs with the \VE \cite{billinghurst2015survey}.
Our hands allow us to manipulate real everyday objects with both strength and precision (\secref{grasp_types}), hence virtual hand interaction techniques seem the most natural way to manipulate virtual objects~\cite{laviola20173d}.
Initially tracked by active sensing devices such as gloves or controllers, it is now possible to track hands in real time using cameras and computer vision algorithms natively integrated into \AR/\VR headsets~\cite{tong2023survey}.

The user's hand is therefore tracked and reconstructed as a \emph{virtual hand} model in the \VE ~\cite{billinghurst2015survey,laviola20173d}.
The simplest models represent the hand as a rigid 3D object that follows the movements of the real hand with \qty{6}{\DoF} (position and orientation in space)~\cite{talvas2012novel}.
An alternative is to model only the fingertips (\figref{lee2007handy}) or the whole hand (\figref{hilliges2012holodesk_1}) as points.
The most common technique is to reconstruct all the phalanges of the hand in an articulated kinematic model (\secref{hand_anatomy})~\cite{borst2006spring}.

The contacts between the virtual hand model and the \VOs are then simulated using heuristic or physics-based techniques~\cite{laviola20173d}.
Heuristic techniques use rules to determine the selection, manipulation and release of a \VO (\figref{piumsomboon2013userdefined_1}).
But they produce unrealistic behaviour and are limited to the cases predicted by the rules.
Physics-based techniques simulate forces at the contact points between the virtual hand and the \VO.
In particular, \textcite{borst2006spring} have proposed an articulated kinematic model in which each phalanx is a rigid body simulated with the god-object~\cite{zilles1995constraintbased} method: the virtual phalanx follows the movements of the real phalanx, but remains constrained to the surface of the virtual objects during contact. The forces acting on the object are calculated as a function of the distance between the real and virtual hands (\figref{borst2006spring}).
More advanced techniques simulate the friction phenomena described in \secref{friction}~\cite{talvas2013godfinger} and finger deformations~\cite{talvas2015aggregate}, allowing highly accurate and realistic interactions, but which can be difficult to compute in real time.

\begin{subfigs}{virtual-hand}{Manipulating \VOs with virtual hands. }[
        \item A fingertip tracking that enables to select a \VO by opening the hand~\cite{lee2007handy}.
        \item Physics-based hand-object manipulation with a virtual hand made of numerous many small rigid-body spheres~\cite{hilliges2012holodesk}.
        \item Grasping a through gestures when the fingers are detected as opposing on the \VO~\cite{piumsomboon2013userdefined}.
        \item A kinematic hand model with rigid-body phalanges (in beige) following the real tracked hand (in green) but kept physically constrained to the \VO. Applied force are displayed as red arrows~\cite{borst2006spring}.
    ]
    \subfigsheight{37mm}
    \subfig{lee2007handy}
    \subfig{hilliges2012holodesk_1}
    \subfig{piumsomboon2013userdefined_1}
    \subfig{borst2006spring}
\end{subfigs}

However, the lack of physical constraints on the user's hand movements makes manipulation actions tiring~\cite{hincapie-ramos2014consumed}.
While the fingers of the user traverse the virtual object, a physics-based virtual hand remains in contact with the object, a discrepancy that may degrade the user's performance in \VR~\cite{prachyabrued2012virtual}.
Finally, in the absence of haptic feedback on each finger, it is difficult to estimate the contact and forces exerted by the fingers on the object during grasping and manipulation~\cite{maisto2017evaluation,meli2018combining}.
While a visual rendering of the virtual hand in \VR can compensate for these issues~\cite{prachyabrued2014visual}, the visual and haptic rendering of the virtual hand, or their combination, in \AR is under-researched.


\subsection{Visual Rendering of Hands in AR}
\label{ar_visual_hands}

In \VR, as the user is fully immersed in the \VE and cannot see their real hands, it is necessary to represent their virtually.
When interacting using a physics-based virtual hand method (\secref{ar_virtual_hands}), the visual rendering of the virtual hand have an influence on perception, interaction performance, and preference of users~\cite{prachyabrued2014visual,argelaguet2016role,grubert2018effects,schwind2018touch}.
In a pick-and-place manipulation task in \VR, \textcite{prachyabrued2014visual} and \textcite{canales2019virtual} found that the visual hand rendering whose motion was constrained to the surface of the \VOs similar as to \textcite{borst2006spring} (\enquote{Outer Hand} in \figref{prachyabrued2014visual}) performed the worst, while the visual hand rendering following the tracked human hand (thus penetrating the \VOs, \enquote{Inner Hand} in \figref{prachyabrued2014visual}), performed the best, even though it was rather disliked.
\textcite{prachyabrued2014visual} also observed that the best compromise was a double rendering, showing both the virtual hand and the tracked hand (\enquote{2-Hand} in \figref{prachyabrued2014visual}).
While a realistic human hand rendering increase the sense of ownership~\cite{lin2016need}, a skeleton-like rendering provide a stronger sense of control~\cite{argelaguet2016role}, and a minimalistic fingertip rendering reduce errors in typing text~\cite{grubert2018effects}.
A visual hand rendering while in \VE also seems to affect how one grasps an object~\cite{blaga2020too}, or how real bumps and holes are perceived~\cite{schwind2018touch}.

\fig{prachyabrued2014visual}{Visual hand renderings affect user experience in \VR~\cite{prachyabrued2014visual}.}

As presented in \secref{ar_displays}, a user sees their hands in \AR, and the mutual occlusion between the hands and the \VOs is a common issue, \ie hiding the \VO when the real hand is in front of it and hiding the real hand when it is behind the \VO.
For example, in \figref{hilliges2012holodesk_2}, the user is pinching a virtual cube in \OST-\AR with their thumb and index fingers, but while the index is behind the cube, it is seen as in front of it.
While in \VST-\AR, this could be solved as a masking problem by combining the real and virtual images~\cite{battisti2018seamless}, \eg in \figref{suzuki2014grasping}, in \OST-\AR, this is much more difficult because the \VE is displayed as a transparent \TwoD image on top of the \ThreeD \RE, which cannot be easily masked~\cite{macedo2023occlusion}.
%Yet, even in \VST-\AR,

As the \VE is intangible and the hand of the user visible while in \AR, adding a visual rendering of the virtual hand that is physically constrained to the \VOs would achieve a similar result to the promising double-hand rendering of \textcite{prachyabrued2014visual}.
Additionally, \textcite{kahl2021investigation} showed that a \VO overlaying a tangible object in \OST-\AR can vary in size without worsening the users' experience nor the performance when manipulating it.
This suggests that a visual hand rendering superimposed on the real hand could be helpful, but should not impair users.

An alternative is to render the \VOs and the virtual hand semi-transparents, so that they are partially visible even when one is occluding the other (\figref{buchmann2005interaction}).
Although perceived as less natural, this seems to be preferred to a mutual visual occlusion in \VST-\AR~\cite{buchmann2005interaction,ha2014wearhand,piumsomboon2014graspshell} and \VR~\cite{vanveldhuizen2021effect}, but has not yet been evaluated in \OST-\AR.
However, this effect still causes depth conflicts that make it difficult to determine if one's hand is behind or in front of a \VO, \eg the thumb is in front of the virtual cube, but could be perceived to be behind it.

Few works have compared different visual hand rendering in \AR, nor with wearable haptic feedback.
\textcite{blaga2017usability} evaluated direct hand manipulation in non-immersive \VST-\AR a skeleton-like rendering against no visual hand rendering: while user performance did not improve, participants felt more confident with the virtual hand (\figref{blaga2017usability}).
%\textcite{krichenbauer2018augmented} found participants \percent{22} faster in immersive \VST-\AR than in \VR in the same pick-and-place manipulation task.
%No visual hand rendering was used in \VR while the real hand was visible in \AR.
In a collaboration task in immersive \OST-\AR \vs \VR, \textcite{yoon2020evaluating} showed that a realistic human hand rendering was the most preferred over a low-polygon hand and a skeleton-like hand for the remote partner.
\textcite{genay2021virtual} found that the \SoE was stronger with robotic hands overlay in \OST-\AR when the environment contains \VOs (\figref{genay2021virtual}).
Finally, \textcite{maisto2017evaluation} and \textcite{meli2018combining} compared visual and haptic rendering of the hand in \AR, as detailed in the next section (\secref{vhar_rings}).
Taken together, these results suggest that a visual hand rendering in \AR could improve the user experience and performance in direct hand manipulation tasks, but the best rendering is still to be determined.
%\cite{chan2010touching} : cues for touching (selection) \VOs.
%\textcite{saito2021contact} found that masking the real hand with a textured 3D opaque virtual hand did not improve performance in a reach-to-grasp task but displaying the points of contact on the \VO did.
%To the best of our knowledge, evaluating the role of a visual rendering of the hand displayed \enquote{and seen} directly above real tracked hands in immersive OST-AR has not been explored, particularly in the context of \VO manipulation.

\begin{subfigs}{visual-hands}{Visual hand renderings in \AR. }[
        \item Grasping a \VO in \OST-\AR with no visual hand rendering~\cite{hilliges2012holodesk}.
        \item Simulated mutual-occlusion between the hand grasping and the \VO in \VST-\AR~\cite{suzuki2014grasping}.
        \item Grasping a real object with a semi-transparent hand in \VST-\AR~\cite{buchmann2005interaction}.
        \item Skeleton rendering overlaying the real hand in \VST-\AR~\cite{blaga2017usability}.
        \item Robotic rendering overlaying the real hands in \OST-\AR~\cite{genay2021virtual}.
    ]
    \subfigsheight{29mm}
    \subfig{hilliges2012holodesk_2}
    \subfig{suzuki2014grasping}
    \subfig{buchmann2005interaction}
    \subfig{blaga2017usability}
    \subfig{genay2021virtual}
    %\subfig{yoon2020evaluating}
\end{subfigs}

\subsection{Conclusion}
\label{ar_conclusion}

\AR systems integrate \VOs into the visual perception as if they were part of the \RE.
\AR headsets now enable real-time tracking of the head and hands, and high-quality display of virtual content, while being portable and mobile.
They enable highly immersive \AEs that users can explore with a strong sense of the presence of the virtual content.
But without a direct and seamless interaction with the \VOs using the hands, the coherence of the \AE experience is compromised.
In particular, there is a lack of mutual occlusion and interaction cues between hands and virtual content while manipulating \VOs in \OST-\AR that could be mitigated by visual rendering of the hand.
A common alternative approach is to use tangible objects as proxies for interaction with \VOs, but this raises concerns about their number and association with \VOs, as well as consistency with the visual rendering.
In this context, the use of wearable haptic systems worn on the hand seems to be a promising solution both for improving direct hand manipulation of \VOs and for coherent visuo-haptic augmentation of touched tangible objects.
