# Participatory Exhibition-Viewing Using Augmented Reality and Analysis of Visitor Behavior
## 4 Data Analysis
### Path Analysis  
Following H2 proposed in Section 3.3, the path analysis was performed by collecting the 3D coordinates of visitors' smartphones as they moved within the exhibition space. These coordinates were collected every three seconds and then plotted into three-dimensional path diagrams using a behavior analysis system developed by our team, illustrating the movement trajectory for each user. Additionally, all paths could be compiled into a single path distribution diagram to understand the overall behavior of users during the exhibition. The analysis aimed to visualize the paths taken by visitors, distinguishing between the exhibition-viewing mode and the message mode. We interpreted the movement distributions in these modes through path diagrams to understand the variations in visitor movement behaviors. The colors in Figure 7 represent all visitors' paths, used to depict the distribution of movement within the exhibition space. The intention was to illustrate the diversity in the routes taken by individuals. The observations carried out from these lines regarding the overlapping densities refer to the observed path densities. We intended to highlight the variations in visitor movement, particularly focusing on areas of high concentration versus those less traveled. The similarity in the shapes and distribution initially observed is indicative of the common routes taken by many visitors, while the distinct outliers represent unique exploratory behaviors. We conducted preliminary tests to assess the accuracy of the AR positioning system, considering the potential variance introduced by the use of different smartphone models and operating systems by visitors. These tests aimed to ensure the reliability of the data collected for path analysis. Points that significantly deviated due to potential errors in AR positioning or hardware inconsistencies were reviewed. Specifically, outliers were identified based on their physical impossibility; any visitor movement paths observed from the path diagrams that were located outside the feasible areas of the exhibition space--places inaccessible to visitors--were considered anomalies and were excluded from the final analysis. The distribution of the paths taken by the visitors shows a wider range for visitors in the message mode. We speculate that this is because in the exhibition-viewing mode, the range of viewing content was set and more concentrated, whereas in the message mode, there were no limitations, and this resulted in a wider range of movement. In the exhibition-viewing mode, the path heights and movement ranges were easier to predict. With the path of one visitor as an example (Figure 8), we can see that there are more nodes in front of the frames, meaning that the visitor stopped in front of the frames for passive AR object viewing. In contrast, the nodes in the message mode were more scattered, showing the visitor was viewing other messages and looking for somewhere to leave a message. As a result, the movement paths were more difficult to predict.  
Figure 7: Path distributions of all visitors (Blue lines represent the paths of visitors in Exhibition mode, while red lines represent the paths of visitors in Message mode.).