Digital Theater: Dynamic Theatre Spaces

  • Sara Owsley Sood
  • Athanasios V. Vasilakos


Digital technology has given rise to new media forms. Interactive theatre is such a new type of media that introduces new digital interaction methods into theatres. In a typical experience of interactive theatres, people enter cyberspace and enjoy the development of a story in a non-linear manner by interacting with the characters in the story. Therefore, in contrast to conventional theatre which presents predetermined scenes and story settings unilaterally, interactive theatre makes it possible for the viewer to actually take part in the plays and enjoy a first person experience.

In “Interactive” Article section of this article, we are concerned with embodied mixed reality techniques using video-see-through HMDs (head mounted display). Our research goal is to explore the potential of embodied mixed reality space as an interactive theatre experience medium. What makes our system advantageous is that we, for the first time, combine embodied mixed reality, live 3D human actor capture and Ambient Intelligence, for an increased sense of presence and interaction.


Ambient Intelligence Mixed Reality Story Generation Recording Room Seed Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Sparacino F. DirectIVE: Choreographing Media for Interactive Virtual Environments. Master Thesis, MIT Media Lab, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sparacino F., Devenport G., and Pentland A. Media in performance: Interactive spaces for dance, theater, circus and museum exhibits. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3–4), 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sparacino F., Hall K., Wren C., Davenport G., and Pentland A. Improvisational theaterspace. In The Sixth Biennal Symposium for Arts and Technology, Connecticut College, New London, CT, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carlson M. Theories of the Theatre: A historical and critical survey, from Greeks to the Present. Cornell University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brockett O. The History of the theater. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 5th edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Point Grey Research Inc. [Online]. Available from: < > 
  7. 7.
    ARToolKit [Online]. Available from: < > 
  8. 8.
    Vasilakos, A., Cheok, A.D., Nguyen, T.H.D., Qui, T.C.T. and Chen, L.C. (2008) ‘Interactive theater via wearable computers and mixed reality with ambient intelligence’ Information Sciences (Elsevier), Vol. 178, pp.679–663.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Owsley Sara, Shamma D. A., Hammond K., Bradshaw S., Sood S., “The Association Engine: A Free Associative Digital Improviser.” An Art Demonstration. ACM Multimedia 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shamma, D. A., S. Owsley, et al. (2004). Network Arts: Exposing Cultural Reality. The International World Wide Web Conference. New York.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sood, Sara Owsley. Compelling Computation: Strategies for Mining the Interesting. PhD Thesis, 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Napier, M. (2004). Improvise: Scene From The Inside Out. Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beeferman, D. (1998). Lexical discovery with an enriched semantic network. Workshop on Applications of WordNet in Natural Language Processing Systems, ACL/COLING.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    WordNet. (1997). “WordNet.” 2004, from
  16. 16.
    Shamma, D., S. Owsley, et al. (2004). Using Web Frequency Within Multimedia Exhibitions. ACM Multimedia. New York, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pinkney, J. (2000). Aesop’s Fables, SeaStar.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Price, R. and L. Stern (1974). The Original Mad Libs 1, Price Stern Sloan.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Perlin, K. (1996). “Responsive Face Project.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perlin, K. and A. Goldberg (1996). “Improv: A System for Scripting Interactive Actors in Virtual Worlds.” Computer Graphics 29(3).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schank, R. C. (1990). Tell Me A Story. Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic Memory Revisited. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schank, R. C. and R. Abelson (1977). Scripts Plans Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meehan, J. R. (1977). Tale-spin, an interactive program that writes stories. the 5th IJCAI.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meehan, J. R. (1981). TALE-SPIN and Micro TALE-SPIN. Inside Computer Understanding. R. Schank and C. Riesbeck. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum: 197 to 258.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klein, S., J. Aeschlimann, et al. (1973). Automatic novel writing., University of Wisconsin Madison.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dehn, N. (1981). Story Generation after Tale-Spin. Seventh Internation Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu, H. and P. Singh (2002). MakeBelieve: Using commonsense knowledge to generate stories. Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Fourteenth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Smith, S. and J. Bates (1989). Towards a theory of narrative for interactive fiction. Pittsburgh, PA, Carnegie Melon University.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Murray, J. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, The Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mateas, M. and P. Sengers (1999). Narrative Intelligence. AAAI 1999 Fall Symposium Series.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mateas, M. (2001). “Expressive AI: A hybrid art and science practice.” Leonardo: Journal of the International Society for Arts, Sciences, and Technology 34(2): 147–153.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mateas, M., S. Domike, et al. (1999). Terminal time: An ideologically-biased history machine. AISB Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Creative Language: Stories and Humor.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Domike, S., M. Mateas, et al., Eds. (2003). The recombinant history apparatus presents: Terminal Time. Narrative Intelligence. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bringsjord, S. and D. A. Ferrucci (2000). Artificial Intelligence and Literary Creativity. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sousa, R. d. (2000). “Artificial Intelligence and Literacy Creativity: Inside the Mind of BRUTUS, a Storytelling Machine.” Computational Linguistics 26(4): 642–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gervas, P., B. Dıaz-Agudo, et al. (2005). “Story plot generation based on CBR.” Knowledge based systems 18(4–5): 235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oatley, K. (1994). “The Creative Process: A computer model of storytelling and creativity.” Computational Linguistics 21(4): 579–581.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Turner, S. R. (1994). The Creative Process: A computer model of storytelling and creativity. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sood, Sara Owsley. Buzz: Mining and Presenting Interesting Stories. The International Journal of Art and Technology V1 N1, 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencePomona CollegeClaremontUSA
  2. 2.Department of Theatre StudiesUniversity of PeloponneseNafplioGreece

Personalised recommendations