Evaluation of Touchable 3D Printed Replicas in Museums

Volume 60 Number 4 October 2017
ARTICLE
Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

PAUL F. WILSON , JANET STOTT, JASON M. WARNETT, ALEX ATTRIDGE, M. PAUL SMITH, AND MARK A. WILLIAMS
Abstract The multisensory aspect of the museum, while neglected for many years, is undergoing a
resurgence as museum workers have begun to push towards re-establishing the senses as a major
component of museum pedagogy. However, for many museums a major roadblock lies in the need to
conserve rare objects, a need that prevents visitors from being able to interact with many objects in a
meaningful way. This issue can be potentially overcome by the rapidly evolving field of 3D printing, which
allows museum visitors to handle authentic replicas without damaging the originals. However, little is
known about how museum visitors consider this approach, how they understand it and whether these
surrogates are welcome within museums. A front-end evaluation of this approach is presented, finding that
visitors were enthusiastic about interacting with touchable 3D printed replicas, highlighting potential
educational benefits among other considerations. Suggestions about the presentation of touchable 3D
printed replicas are also discussed.
INTRODUCTION nobles were allowed to handle artefacts, a

practice that faded into obscurity once public
The idea of touch as a medium for dis- museums became accessible to citizens of all
play in the museum is typically associated classes (Candlin 2008, 2010; Classen and
with the forbidding signage found in nearly Howes 2006). Combined with a hypothesized
every museum around the world; “DO NOT shift towards ocularcentrism associated with
TOUCH” or “FRAGILE”, products of the the rise of modernist scientific principles
“Glass-Case” paradigm that dominates (Neum€ uller et al. 2014; Witcomb 2015),
museum practice today (Dudley 2012). The touch has become confined to the expert cura-
reasons for this are understandable and well tor while the visitor is left to appreciate these
meaning; the preservation of cultural and nat- objects of antiquity as best they can from afar.
ural heritage for future generations to come, The situation has remained this way for some
but it was not always this way. Archival time, although the past two decades have seen
records from the inception of the public a resurgence in effort to change the paradigm.
museum over 300 years ago show that rich Driven by a shift towards constructivist
Paul F. Wilson (P.Wilson.4@warwick.ac.uk 07701333142): PhD Student, Warwick Manufacturing Group, University
of Warwick, University Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Janet Stott (janet.stott@oum.ox.ac.uk): Deputy Director,
Oxford University Museum of Natural History, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW, UK. Jason M.
Warnett (J.M.Warnett@warwick.ac.uk): Assistant Professor, Warwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick,
University Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Alex Attridge (A.Attridge@warwick.ac.uk): Project Manager, Warwick
Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, University Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. M. Paul Smith (paul.-
smith@oum.ox.ac.uk): Director of OUMNH, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, University of Oxford,
Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW, UK. Mark A. Williams (M.A.Williams.1@warwick.ac.uk): Professor, Warwick Manufac-
turing Group, University of Warwick, University Road, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 445

21516952, 2017, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cura.12244 by Cochrane Croatia, Wiley Online Library on [14/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL
learning ideologies (Hooper Greenhill 2007), un-conditioned exposure could result in signifi-
many calls have been made to bring back the cant lasting damage. This produces something
senses, particularly touch, into the exhibition of a conundrum: how can we encourage multi-
space (Chatterjee 2008; Levent and Pascual- sensory experiences with significant historical
Leone 2014; Paris 2002; Pye 2008a). The rea- objects when that risks their destruction?
sons for this are readily apparent; many One way of dealing with this issue through
authors have noted that direct interaction much of the history of museums has been the
with museum objects appears to encourage creation of authentic replicas, typically casts of
enjoyable and, most importantly, memorable original objects among other objects, used as a
lifelong experiences which mesh very well surrogate for handling, preserving the original
with the dominantly constructivist educational object and for exhibitionary purposes (Bearman
paradigm in the postmodern museum (Baker 2011; Bohn 1999; Eardley et al. 2016; Hartfield
2015; Bell 2016; Dudley 2015; Schorch 1994; Malenka 2000). This process, while pro-
2014). As a result, multisensory experiences ducing accurate replicas are often difficult to
are becoming increasingly common in muse- distinguish from the originals, is also a labour-
ums in the form of touch tours, exhibitions intensive approach that can be time-consuming
and handling sessions (Candlin 2010). and potentially costly (Lindsay et al. 1996; J.
Though scarce, published evaluations have Hay, pers. comm.). Moulding procedures are
showed these interventions to be extremely also risky, fragile items being likely to break dur-
successful (Davidson et al. 1999; Kuo et al. ing the moulding process if due care is not prop-
2016). erly exercised. There is also a risk of silicones
While this approach has been thoroughly leaching into the specimen if it is not properly
embraced by science centres and children’s protected with in addition to the need for expe-
museums, the fact remains for more traditional rienced workers familiar with the materials and
museums that multisensory interaction risks the processes (Goodwin and Chaney 1995; Monge
precious objects that museums are charged with and Mann 2004; Le Cabec and Toussaint 2017;
protecting and provides a barrier to this J. Hay, pers. comm.). A more modern counter-
approach. Even where multisensory experiences part to this approach is that of 3D printing,
have been exploited by these kind of museums where there has been an increase in build quality
they generally include objects or replicas made and falling costs over the past few decades. 3D
specifically for that exhibition or objects derived printing is a term that describes a range of meth-
from teaching collections. While interesting in ods for producing a physical replica of a digital
their own right, these objects lack the sense of object in a wide array of materials via additively
awe that manifests itself in authentic objects of stacking layers of material on top of each other
true antiquity (Spence and Gallace 2008; to create a three-dimensional object. Over the
Hampp and Schwan 2014). Understandably past few years it has risen to mainstream recog-
this is to preserve these key objects from degra- nition and popularity through the media and is
dation for without the expert hand of the cura- being exploited in a variety of business sectors,
tor to supervise, the risk of damage is significant especially heritage (D’Agnano et al. 2015;
(Candlin 2010; Pilegaard 2015; Spence and Metallo and Rossi 2011; Scopigno et al. 2014,
Gallace 2008). Where objects are fragile the 2017). The major advantage of this approach is
issue is even more prevalent as any handling or the ability to non-destructively sample objects
446 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

Figure 1. The original Phascolotherium bucklandii specimen. Scale bar is 5 mm. [Color figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
(using scanning methods such as x-ray com- University Museum of Natural History
puted tomography (Abel et al. 2011) and laser- (OUMNH), a museum that already features
scanning (Fantini et al. 2008)) in order to create permanent multisensory experiences that
spatially and geometrically accurate replicas that encourage museum visitors to interact directly
are disposable and scalable in addition to their with museum specimens. We evaluate this
relative inexpense (D’Agnano et al. 2015; Sco- idea using short, semi-structured interviews
pigno et al. 2014). These touchable 3D printed paired with content analysis, communicating
replicas are already being used by museums for directly with museum visitors within the
research (McKnight et al. 2015), repatriation exhibition space in order to assess their opin-
(Cronin 2015), restoration (Laycock et al. ions on the introduction of touchable 3D
2015) and in exhibitions (Olson et al. 2014). printed replicas into the museum.
They have also been used with increasing fre-
quency formultisensory experiences with 3D METHODS AND MATERIALS
printed replicas of historical objects for museum
visitors (Capurro et al. 2014; D’Agnano et al. Materials
2015; Dima et al. 2014; Marshall et al. 2016)
although the number of studies that evaluate All of the materials used in this project are
this latter approach is limited (Di Franco et al. derived from the OUMNH specimen of the
2015; Neum€ uller et al. 2014). To the authors’ fossil mammal Phascolotherium bucklandii
knowledge, research investigating how museum (OUMNH J.20077), which is a lower jawbone
visitors interact and perceive such 3D printed (Figure 1). This specimen was transported to
replicas is thus limited and little is known about the X-Ray Computed Tomography (XCT)
how museum visitors regard the idea of touch- facilities at WMG – University of Warwick
able 3D printed replicas. where it was scanned using a Zeiss XRadia 520
In this paper, we present a front-end Versa CT scanner (Oberkochen, Germany).
evaluation of touchable 3D printed replicas as XCT is a technique in which an object is
a permanent fixture within the exhibition scanned in three-dimensions by firing X-rays
space. The study was carried out at Oxford from a source through the target object that are
Paul F. Wilson et al. 447

either attenuated or pass through and are technology, but this aspect was out of the
received by a detector. This creates an X-ray scope of the interview process.
intensity image or radiograph based upon the Age ranges (Figure 3b) show representa-
density of the object and its internal features. tion in all age categories, dominantly in the
Radiographs of the object are taken at regular 08–17, 35–44 and 45–54 categories with 24%
angular increments through 360° and recon- (n = 18), 30% (n = 23) and 20% (n = 15)
structed to create a three-dimensional volume. respectively. Other age categories show smal-
From this internal information can be extracted, ler representation compared to these; 18–24
making XCT an excellent methodology for at 5% (n = 4), 25–34 at 8% (n = 6), 55–64 at
inspecting specimens or objects buried within a 7% (n = 5) and 65+ at 7% (n = 5). As a result,
matrix which are fragile and/or have a complex the sample appears to lack thorough repre-
internal structure (Kumar et al. 2011; Wilson sentation from young and older adults
et al. 2017). although this is likely in part due to the
From the scan data, the Phascolotherium attraction of families towards the workshop
jaw was separated from the surrounding format, while perhaps of less interest to other
matrix via segmentation and a number of sur- age categories.
face files were exported for 3D printing in a
variety of materials (Mahindru and Mahendru Sampling and Data Collection
2013). 3D printing is the process by which a
digital file is computationally divided into a Sampling was undertaken using a conve-
series of layers that are additively stacked on nience sampling approach, the interview process
top of each other to create an accurate physi- taking place within the main exhibition hall of
cal model (Mahindru and Mahendru 2013; the OUMNH in the form of a workshop-style
Torabi et al. 2015). Five 3D prints were cre- set-up.
ated using different printing methods: Fusion The principal researcher sat at this work-
Deposition Modelling (FDM), Powder-Based shop and visitors who approached were told
3D Printing (3DP), Laser Sintering (LS) and about the fossil specimen, Phascolotherium buck-
Stereolithography (SL) (Scopigno et al. 2017; landii, and were encouraged to handle the 3D
Torabi et al. 2015). These prints were used in prints in addition to a plaster cast of the original.
the interview process and handled by partici- Visitors who showed a sufficient level of engage-
pants before, during and after the interviews ment beyond temporary, cursory interest were
(Figure 2). then asked whether or not they would like to take
part in an interview as part of a research project.
Demographics A minimum age of 8+ was placed upon partici-
pants in order to ensure that all participants were
The demographics of the sampled par- able to communicate clearly and concisely.
ticipants can be found in Figure 3. Of the These semi-structured interviews were first
76 participants, the gender split is 58% Male pilot-tested on a number of museum visitors
(n = 44) to 42% Female (n = 32) (Fig- and non-museum visitors (n = 18) and were
ure 3a). This may be indicative of males refined before being implemented properly
having a greater interest in the subject of within the museum environment. These inter-
touchable 3D prints and/or in the views asked visitors questions on the topic of 3D

Figure 2. The 3D prints used in the investigation. From left to right, these are; Blue Thermoplastic (ABS), Stainless
Steel, Multi-Material Resin (VeroClear and VeroWhite), Colour Sandstone and White Resin (VeroWhite). The 3D prints
are scaled up from the original specimen by a factor of approximately six. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonli-
nelibrary.com]
Figure 3. Demographics of sampled population. (a) Gender distribution. (b) Age Distribution. Yellow (Dots) = 08–17,
Green (Horizontal) = 18–24, Light Blue (Diagonal Left) = 25–34, Dark Blue (Diagonal Right) = 35–44, Purple (Verti-
cal) = 45–54, Red (Cross-hatched) = 55–64 and Orange (Hexagonal) = 65+. Created using ggplot2 in R. [Color fig-
ure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
printing, what they knew about it; whether or First, the principal investigator read
not they would enhance their museum experi- through the transcriptions to identify com-
ence, would they like to see them in more muse- mon themes among the responses to the
ums and would they visit more if they were questions and then inductively created a set
present. Each interview was subsequently of categories for each question and its
recorded and later transcribed. responses in order to classify the answers.
Following initial category creation, these cat-
Content Analysis egories were refined by preliminary coding to
create a coding scheme.
The interview transcripts were then sub- This was then subjected to inter-rater
jected to content analysis, a technique com- reliability assessment using Krippendorff’s
monly used to investigate complex qualitative Alpha (a) (Krippendorff 2013). This was car-
phenomena in an objective manner within the ried out on 10% of the total sample (n = 8
field of user experience, among other disciplines or 32 units of analysis), with both the princi-
(Karapanos et al. 2009; Krippendorff 2013; pal investigator and the inter-rater coder
Wellings et al. 2008). It provides the advantage independently coding these same transcripts.
of being able to detect common themes across The first iteration failed to meet the generally
texts, images and audio files that would be accepted minimum agreement rating of 0.8
impossible to detect via other methodologies (Krippendorff 2009, 2013) and was further
and converts a dense mass of qualitative data into revised, computing a final a of 0.899, indica-
a more manageable form (Krippendorff 2013). tive of a reliable coding scheme.

Figure 4. Theme 1: What do you know about 3D Printing? Results of Content Analysis. Colours and patterns repre-
sent age groups. Yellow (Dots) = 08–17, Green (Horizontal) = 18–24, Light Blue (Diagonal Left) = 25–34, Dark Blue
(Diagonal Right) = 35–44, Purple (Vertical) = 45–54, Red (Cross-hatched) = 55–64 and Orange (Hexagonal) = 65+.
Created using ggplot2 in R. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
RESULTS while 29% expressed a degree of understanding

of 3D printing technologies.
In this section, the results from the con- When divided by age groups, each level of
tent analysis of museum visitor responses will knowledge shows a roughly even distribution of
be described for each of the four questions ages, with one notable exception. Participants
asked. in the 08–17 category show the lowest levels of
knowledge, and as well as being the only repre-
Theme 1: What Do You Know About 3D sentatives not to have heard of this technology
Printing? (11%), 55% of participants in this age group
knowing nothing about its operation, 28% hav-
In total, the vast majority of participants ing only simple conceptions and only 5% know-
(n = 74) had heard of 3D printing, with only ing how it operates, with no representation at
3% of the total sample having not heard of it higher levels of knowledge. No other age cate-
(Figure 4). In both cases these visitors belonged gories show trends of note.
in the 08–17 age category. However, nearly half
of the surveyed visitors, although having heard Theme 2: Do You Think That Handling 3D
of the technology, had no understanding of how Touchable Printed Replicas Like These
3D printing worked (47%). 21% could provide Could Enhance Your Museum Experience?
relatively simple or incorrect assumptions about
how they believed 3D printing functions while a When asked if they thought that handling
further 16% of interviewees understood at least touchable 3D printed replicas could enhance
the basics of how 3D printing operated. A fur- their museum experience, the overwhelming
ther 3% of visitors owned or had operated a 3D majority (93%) of sampled visitors stated that it
printer before and were familiar with the tech- would (Figure 5), compared to only 3% who
nique while 9% of visitors had some familiarity were neutral on the subject, a further 1% who
with 3D printing via their profession or job and stated that it would not.
demonstrated clear understanding of the details Of those who responded positively, 36%
of how 3D printing methods operated. As a stated that it would enhance their understanding
result, a total of 71% of participants did not and enjoyment of museum exhibits. Within this
express proper understanding of 3D printing category were four discrete subcategories: 12%

Figure 5. Theme 2: Do you think that handling 3D touchable printed replicas like these could enhance your museum
experience? Results of Content Analysis. Colours and patterns represent age groups. Yellow (Dots) = 08–17, Green
(Horizontal) = 18–24, Light Blue (Diagonal Left) = 25–34, Dark Blue (Diagonal Right) = 35–44, Purple (Verti-
who stated enhancement of enjoyment and specimen than they normally would if it was
understanding for all age groups, 3% for all age behind a glass case (13%). The remaining propor-
groups while also allowing greater appreciation tion of positive responses suggested other benefits
of the specimen, a further 18% for children including assistance for visually-impaired visitors
specifically and 3% for children specifically while (4%), allowing visitors to touch and feel things
also allowing greater appreciation of the speci- they never normally would and, as a result, feel
men. The next most common reason was that of “behind the scenes” (1%) and permitting geo-
allowing multisensory interaction with the graphical access to specimens in more museums
objects (18%) while others suggested that han- (1%). 5% of visitors responded positively, but did
dling such replicas would help to preserve the not provide a valid reason for believing so.
original specimen (15%). For this latter cate- Of the two interviewees who responded
gory, 8% suggested just that it would preserve neutrally, one stated that they found the touch-
the original object while 4% suggested it would able 3D prints to be adequate but would have
also aid understanding and enjoyment for all age preferred to touch the original thing (1%) while
groups, and a further 3% suggested that it would the other cited fears of dropping and damaging
do the same, but for children specifically. The the 3D prints if they were too heavy (1%).
next most common reason was that it would In stark contrast, only one participant
allow visitors to better appreciate the object or responded negatively. This participant expressed

concern by stating that they would have much the overwhelming majority of interviewees
preferred to have touched the real thing and responded positively (Figure 6). 80% responded
found the 3D prints boring by comparison (1%). that they would like to see touchable 3D printed
The participant belonged to the 08–17 age cate- replicas in more museums while another 4% also
gory, suggesting that some younger participants responded that they would, but only if certain
may share similar concerns. This was the only requirements were met. 14% of interviewees
negative response to this question. No notable responded neutrally, stating that while it could
trends are apparent among age groups. be positive, a number of considerations would
need to be taken into account first. Again, only a
Theme 3: Do You Think That Touchable 3D single participant responded negatively (1%).
Printed Replicas Like These Should Be Of those who responded positively, the
Present in More Museums? most commonly cited reason as before was the
enhancement of understanding and enjoyment
When asked if touchable 3D printed repli- for museum visitors (32%), 18% stating for all
cas should be present in more museums, again age groups while the other 14% stated for
Figure 6. Theme 3: Do you think that touchable 3D printed replicas like these should be present in more museums? Results
of Content Analysis. Colours and patterns represent age groups. Yellow (Dots) = 08–17, Green (Horizontal) = 18–24, Light
Blue (Diagonal Left) = 25–34, Dark Blue (Diagonal Right) = 35–44, Purple (Vertical) = 45–54, Red (Cross-hatched) = 55–
64 and Orange (Hexagonal) = 65+. Created using ggplot2 in R. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

children specifically. As before, the next most Again, only a single respondent
popular reason was that this approach allowed responded negatively (1%), citing concern
multisensory engagement with replicas of that the touchable 3D printed replicas were
objects (11%) while allowing greater apprecia- not the real object and were thus uninterest-
tion of the objects (8%), and the preservation of ing, a similar response to that noted above.
the original object from potentially damaging Again, this participant belonged in the 08–17
handling (6%) were again cited as reasons for group. No notable trends are apparent among
seeing touchable 3D prints in more museums. age groups.
Other reasons stated were the ability to share
specimens between museums (geographical Theme 4: Would The Opportunity to Handle
access) (5%), allowing visitors to feel “behind Such 3D Printed Replicas Encourage You
the scenes” (4%), potential commercial benefits to Visit Museums More or Less Often?
to the museum (1%) and wanting to see this
approach around the world (1%). 12% of partic- When asked if the opportunity to han-
ipants responded positively, but were unable to dle 3D printed replicas would alter their vis-
supply a valid reason. iting habits, the majority of responses were
Some visitors responded positively (4%), again positive although not to such a great
but only if certain conditions were met. 3% sta- extent as seen in Themes 2 and 3 (Fig-
ted that they would only wish them to be in ure 7). Again, the large majority (62%)
more museums provided that they looked as responded that they would visit more but
realistic as possible while another 1% wished to 30% responded that this would not change
see them, provided that they did not detract their visiting habits, while again only 1%
from the existing exhibits. responded negatively, saying that it would
A number of interviewees responded neu- make them visit less.
trally to this question (14%), citing some con- Of those who responded positively, again
cerns that need to be taken into account before the most commonly cited reason was the
implementing touchable 3D printed replicas in enhancement of education and enjoyment
more museums. Five percent expressed con- (25%), 8% stating that it would be beneficial
cerns about the cost of 3D printing and for all age groups while 17% stated that it
whether or not museum institutions could would beneficial for children specifically. The
afford them while 4% stated that perhaps these next most common reason was again the
3D prints did not belong in all types of muse- allowing of multisensory engagement with
ums, typically in those with more abstract con- the replicas of the objects (15%) while others
tent. A further 2% cited both cost and the type again suggested that greater appreciation of
of museum as being a concern. 1% stated that the objects than just behind a glass case (8%)
they should complement but never replace the would encourage them to visit more. The
original specimens, citing fears of removal of remaining responses make up a relatively
the genuine specimens for safekeeping and small proportion, with some visitors stating
using these 3D printed replicas as surrogates. that they would visit more because it would
Finally, 1% stated that they liked the idea but help to preserve the original object (3%); if it
that it would make the museum using the tech- were advertised (1%); that they would make
nology less special. visits longer and more worthwhile (1%); and

Figure 7. Theme 4: Would the opportunity to handle such 3D printed replicas encourage you to visit museums more
or less often? Results of Content Analysis. Colours and patterns represent age groups. Yellow (Dots) = 08–17, Green
(Horizontal) = 18–24, Light Blue (Diagonal Left) = 25–34, Dark Blue (Diagonal Right) = 35–44, Purple (Verti-
the sparking of interest in 3D printing tech- 3% stated that they visit museums a lot
nology (1%). already so it would be unlikely to change that
Of those who responded that they would habit. Other reasons included the limitations
not change their visiting habits, the majority on time of daily life that are far more signifi-
(18%) cited two major reasons. The first was cant (1%) and that museums would need to
that such touchable 3D prints would certainly create specific exhibits or events using these
enhance their visit but not encourage them 3D printed replicas (1%).
to visit more (9%) and the second being that Only a single respondent responded nega-
the subject matter of the museum or a speci- tively (1%) and again cited concerns that
fic exhibit would be of far more interest over because the prints are not the real object, they
just having the ability to touch objects. A are not interesting. Again this participant
further 5% suggested that touchable 3D belonged to the 08–17 age group.
printed replicas might influence their choice Notable among the age groups was the
of museum when choosing between one that enthusiasm by participants in the 08–17 cate-
had such replicas and one that did not while gory. The vast majority in this age category

(72%) responded that the introduction of stated that these would not influence their visit-
these touchable 3D printed replicas would ing patterns, suggesting that touchable 3D
encourage them to visit museums more, com- prints would not be a guaranteed way of attract-
pared to 1% who stated that they would not ing museum visitors and represent only part of
change their visiting habits and a further 1% the overall experience.
who would visit less. This shows that the
introduction of touchable 3D printed replicas DISCUSSION
would be a major draw for the younger visi-
tors. No other age groups show any signifi- A Different Approach
cant trends.
In all, the general response to the idea of
Summary touchable 3D printed replicas in museums as
part of this study appear to be extremely posi-
To summarise the results of the content tive, with the vast majority of interviewed visi-
analysis of interviewee responses: tors agreeing that the introduction of these
- While the vast majority of the sampled could enhance their museum experience and
visitors had heard about 3D printing, most would be something that they would like to see
do not understand the manner in which it in more museums. Many others were particu-
operates or are only able to offer simple con- larly vocal when it came to being able to touch
ceptions and ideas about it, particularly the mammal jaw replicas, with similar themes of
noticeable in those in the 08–17 category. increased enjoyment and learning emerging
This certainly does not apply to all visitors from the responses of many of the research par-
however and nearly a third (29%) understand ticipants:
at a minimum the basics of its operation,
ranging all the way up to a professional “I think it would make it more enjoyable.
understanding. And, like, it’s easier to learn from something
- Responses to the introduction of touch- that you can physically look at and touch, apart
able 3D printed replicas is overwhelmingly from instead of things behind glass because you
positive, with the majority of visitors wouldn’t remember it as much as being able to
responding very positively to the idea of these handle something” Molly (08–17)
3D prints enhancing their museum experi-
ence and that they should be present in more This comment highlights the earlier men-
museums. The dominant reasons for this tioned glass-case paradigm that remains domi-
positivity are tied to potential increases to nant in museum displays to date. The majority
understanding and enjoyment while visiting of modern and historical museum displays
museums, the simple ability to touch and involve some variant of the theme of placing a
interact with accurate replicas and the ability barrier between visitor and object, naturally
to better appreciate specimens on display than designed to protect the object from harm, be it a
in traditional display media. glass box or a physical barrier that prevents pry-
- However, while the majority of visitors ing hands from getting too close to objects of
stated that these replicas would encourage them significance and/or antiquity (Dudley 2012;
to visit museums more, a significant proportion Kreps 2015). This glass-case paradigm

represents a major roadblock to the idea of mul- appreciate the specimens in much more detail
tisensory experiences in museums and unless than they would normally and creating a sense
the problem can be overcome, prevents the shift of being “behind the scenes” and experiencing
towards a multisensory paradigm that is called the object as a curator would. The ramification
for by many authors (Dudley 2010, 2015; Kreps of this commonality suggests that touchable 3D
2015; Levent and McRainey 2014). Many visi- printed replicas could help museum visitors to
tors also expressed frustration at these physical engage, enjoy and learn from exhibition content
barriers during the interviews, as is expressed in to a greater degree than via traditional display
the words of Rosetta: media. The ability to better appreciate the detail
of the specimen is also significant as it allows
“I think being able to physically handle the
visitors to closely investigate objects of interest
object makes it come alive that little bit more.
and in doing so, may in turn enhance the learn-
Rather than just being able to look through the
ing and experience derived from exhibition
glass cabinet like you’ve got around here doesn’t
content, making them feel closer to the object
make it real. You don’t have the full sensory
and more in tune with exhibition.
engagement that you do with stuff like this.”
Despite this positivity, it is also worth
Rosetta (25–34)
considering the negative. One participant
Similar empathy was raised particularly by responded negatively across questions and sta-
younger visitors and their parents, who ted that because the prints were not the real
expressed some negativity about older, glass- thing, they were boring and of little interest.
case approaches: The fact that this participant was a younger visi-
tor may be indicative that younger visitors may
“Because for children I think it can be quite
regard 3D printed replicas poorly when com-
boring to just wander around and look at things
pared to the real thing. The lack of sampling at
and I think, depending on the type of child as
ages lower than 8 in this study means that this
well, my son was taken to the [Art Gallery] on
topic is not explored in this study, but identify-
Friday by my dad, who is an artist. And they
ing the perceptions of the museum’s youngest
came home, both disappointed because [my son]
visitors could be instrumental in understanding
couldn’t touch anything. So he was just bored
a potential wider issue.
and he complained the whole time and my poor
Also notable is that this approach may not
dad thought ‘Oh no!’” Michael (35–44)
be as likely to change the visiting habits of
These sentiments were echoed by other museum goers. Nearly a third of respondents
participants, namely that handling the objects stated that they would not alter their visiting
was more engaging and interesting than merely habits, citing a multitude of reasons, particularly
looking at them behind glass cabinets. Across that printed replicas would indeed enhance their
all responses, a majority of interview partici- visit but would not be enough to encourage
pants cited a potential increase in learning and them to come back any more frequently.
enjoyment as the dominant reason that this Another major reason highlighted was that the
approach would enhance their experiences in a subject matter would be a more significant draw
museum. Other advantages such as preserving to a museum compared to the presence of 3D
the original object while also enjoying multisen- prints. Both of these points suggest that merely
sory engagement with it, allowing them to adding touchable 3D printed replicas to an

existing exhibit may be unlikely to trigger an However, as noted previously, there are a
increase in visitor appreciation, indicating that limited amount of studies that have carried
providing interesting, complementary content out rigorous visitor evaluations into multisen-
through 3D printed replicas is key in this sory experiences and their 3D printed coun-
approach. terparts, a trend noted by Neum€ uller et al.
Previous research into multisensory experi- (2014). Indeed, the lack of research that
ences has also shown that visitors enjoy the abil- investigates the detail, workflows and
ity to interact with museum objects. Davidson methodologies of creating such replicas is
et al. (1999) provide one of the earliest evalua- lacking on the whole with a lot of questions
tions of an exhibition designed from the ground worth considering, such as the issue of scale,
up to be completely multisensory at the Boston materials and even ways to present them to
Museum of Science, showing evidence of audiences; this is discussed further below.
increased learning impact from visitors in addi- A key point is that these 3D printed replicas
tion to the increased visitor attraction to the could be an aid to understanding and enjoyment
exhibits compared to its unaltered state. Kuo for museum visitors, thus enhancing the visitor’
et al. (2016) also reported on another multisen- museum experience. This, realistically, is only
sory exhibition known as “Rebuilding the Tong’ natural given the well-known relationship
Ships”, reporting >90% satisfaction ratings in between multisensory experiences and
addition to an increase in interest in the topic enhanced memory retention (Stevensen 2014;
after visits compared to before. A large amount Tiballi 2015; Ward 2014) and has been well-
of anecdotal evidence of visitors enjoying such documented with non-3D printed object repli-
multisensory experiences also exists (Dudley cas as well (Davidson et al. 1999; Kuo et al.
2010; Wehner and Sear 2010; Levent and 2016; Taylor 1973). Several authors report the
McRainey 2014; Schorch 2014). Previous stud- connection between physical interaction and
ies using 3D printing in multisensory exhibits learning and research into neuroscience and
also provide similarly positive results. Dima educational psychology shows that there is a
et al. (2014) carried out an evaluation on a small strong connection between multisensory inter-
3D printed replica of a chess piece using the the- action and the encoding of memory (Lacey
atrical projection technique known as “Pepper’s and Sathian 2014; Pye 2008b; Reeve and
Ghost”, reporting positive results from visitors Woollard 2015; Ward 2014). Thus, as a result,
who handled the print. Marshall et al. (2016) the introduction of touchable 3D printed repli-
reported findings of significant interaction from cas of museum objects is an approach that
museum visitors with an application of the digi- already meshes well with modern concepts of
tal, 3D printed interaction system VIRTEX at museum learning and could provide a new way
the Museon The Hague, although no satis- to facilitate multisensory learning on the exhi-
faction data were collected. Other authors high- bition floor.
light the potential educational advantage of
3D printed physical models, although in the Presenting Touchable 3D Printed Replicas
majority of cases, this is only as a footnote to
other research aims within heritage (Du Ples- Throughout the interview process, other
sis et al. 2015; Laycock et al. 2015; Leakey concerns were raised by visitors on the subject of
and Dzamabova 2013; Rahman et al. 2012). how these touchable 3D prints should be

presented. These concerns are key to creating the prints. Many interviewees expressed some pref-
best multisensory experiences for visitors using erences towards one of the 3D prints, mostly
replicas and should be taken into account by those focussing on their realism. Many stated that the
looking to implement this form of exhibit. more authentic and realistic looking that the 3D
First and foremost, the level of understand- prints were, the better:
ing of the subject of 3D printing needs to be
“Oh actually, the only thing I would say is
addressed. Results from this analysis show that
with the resins and the plastics, I’m holding the
while a majority of visitors have heard of 3D
blue one now, I’m not so keen on the ones that
printing, nearly half of these had little under-
look a bit, well not fake, but a different colour. I
standing of how it worked while another fifth
think they look a bit tacky almost, whereas the
had only a rudimentary understanding. This
ones where you’ve got the right colour, it might
shows that many visitors are unlikely to have had
take a bit of touching up and a bit of artistry and
contact with any form of 3D printing, let alone
artistic license to get people to warm to them, to
3D printed replicas. As a consequence, it may be
question whether or not they are fake or real.”
necessary to take this lack of understanding into
Bismark (25–34)
account when designing exhibits that incorporate
touchable 3D printed replicas. Visitors should be Others noted that both the weight and the
made aware that the touchable items are indeed thermal properties are also important when
3D prints and should include a simple explana- handling these objects, encouraging them to be
tion of how 3D printing works, in addition to as close to the real objects as physically possible:
plain, easy to understand information on the
original size of the specimen and the materials “I also mentioned before the recording was
used, as in the words of Aglioman: on about the thermal properties of the things
you are touching. Because when you get to look
“I think all I would say is if you are then at them, you get to look and see if something is
going to be exhibiting things like this for them definitely made of rock. . . . being able to look is
to touch, I . . . think you then need to have, just different from being able to feel it and to be able
a bit of explanation, or quite a bit of explana- to just feel that it’s cold, is a new and interesting
tion that as adults you can feed in. If this is thing and you don’t have the fineness that you
supposed to be the real size,. . ., you want to say might get with a plastic print but you do have
that and I think even when we look at these the feeling of heaviness. . .” Lucretia (35–44)
here, sometimes if you are not particularly
knowledgeable you want to look up and the These points are interesting and represent a
question is going to be, is this real or is this a topic in relation to verisimilitude, one that is
cast?” Aglioman (45–54) readily apparent in the creation by hand of repli-
cas of original objects. The question of the “ac-
This should help mitigate potential misin- curate replica” is of pertinent interest when
terpretation of the material on display and pro- creating copies of original artefacts and typically
viding this basic information should ensure that museum professionals have long favoured the
visitors come away with accurate conceptions. creation of “accurate replicas”, those that best
Another theme articulated by many visitors capture the essential aesthetic and physical
was that of the physical properties of the 3D characters of an object, in addition to the

weight, feel and materiality of the original how they are provided for in the museum envi-
(Bohn 1999; M€ uller 2002). This process can ronment. These visually-impaired interviewees
often be time consuming and expensive, requir- expressed the importance of the physical prop-
ing many work hours and their associated costs erties of touchable objects, as in the words of
in labour to create a worthy replica (J. Hay, pers. one interviewee:
comm.). In comparison, 3D printing is much
“You don’t just look at shape and form, you
simpler and more parsimonious, requiring
look at the texture of thing’s temperature, you
much less time (although costs may vary, see
are sensing all of it so you know, cold for bronze
Scopigno et al. 2014, 2017) to create, although
work maybe if it is inlaid in different grains. . .”
arguably at the expense of realism that one gets
Candlin (2003)
from a replica painstakingly recreated from the
original. 3D prints, unless printed with the Contrarily, other research has shown that
highest resolution resins, generally suffer from authenticity perhaps is not as important to visi-
visual artefacts and layer structures that are hall- tors as it would seem. Di Franco et al. (2015)
marks of the technique (Olson et al. 2014; Sco- presented a study on how museum visitors
pigno et al. 2014). The replication of regard authenticity of objects, finding that it
photorealistic colour is also limited at this stage, does not play a particularly prominent role for
but further developments within the 3D print- some visitors, but was not completely unimpor-
ing sector are likely to improve the visual fidelity tant. They found that authenticity takes a back-
of 3D models over time (Gibson et al. 2015; seat to the opportunity to gain knowledge,
Scopigno et al. 2014, 2017). Thus the choice of constituting a contrast to the feedback of visi-
method is a trade-off between the time and tors from this study. Given this contrast com-
costs of creating the replica and the overall fide- bined with large void on the topic of the
lity of the final product relative to the original. physical properties of tactile replicas and poten-
It is thus important to provide the most tial touchable 3D prints, this appears to be a
appropriate material that best complements research area which could provide key insights
the type of object, considering how our inter- into the creation of tactile replicas and could
pretation of what something should feel like help to inform exhibition designers about the
based on sight often differs compared to how best ways in which to exploit these new cutting-
it actually feels in the hand (Spence and Gal- edge display techniques, especially when con-
lace 2008) and 3D printed replicas it seems sidering the huge array of printing techniques
should be created to replicate the original as on the market and the qualitative differences
closely as possible. However, as highlighted by between them.
Neum€ uller et al. (2014) and Spence and Gal- Another key consideration is the potential
lace (2008), little is known about how people for touchable 3D printed replicas to provide
regard these properties in physical models, par- access to accurate specimens for BPS visitors
ticularly when it comes to 3D printing. Some (Candlin 2003; Spence and Gallace 2008).
authors have highlighted the issues of past Museums in the UK are attempting to provide
approaches in this vein, such as Candlin better facilities for BPS visitors, especially under
(2003) who carried out an interview study with pressure from the Disability Discrimination Act
blind and partially sighted (BPS) visitors and (1995) and the more recent Equality Act (2010)
reported their dissatisfaction with regard to (Candlin 2008, 2010; Chick 2017; Mesquita

and Carneiro 2016; Weisen 2008). Temporary museums. While the majority of intervie-
exhibits, touch tours and drop-in sessions have wees also agreed that this approach would
been provided in response (Bieber and Rae encourage them to visit more museums,
2013; Candlin 2003, 2006; Eardley et al. 2016; nearly a third stated that it would not cause
McGee and Rosenberg 2014), in addition to them to change their visiting habits.
three-dimensional tactile images designed for • While mostly positive, the minor amount
BPS visitors to better envisage larger structures of negative feedback indicates that the fact
(Neum€ uller and Reichinger 2013; Neum€ uller these specimens are not real may be an issue
et al. 2014). However, as highlighted above, the for younger visitors and needs to be
problem of allowing visitors to handle objects is explored further. Learning and enjoyment,
to risk damage, a fact that prevents the wide better appreciation of artefacts, preserva-
scale adoption of the provision of permanent tion of the original and being given the
facilities for BPS visitors (Hetherington 2000, ability to interact with museum items were
2003; Spence and Gallace 2008). The creation the most popular reasons for visitors wish-
of completely disposable, risk-free touchable ing to see more of these touchable 3D
3D printed replicas thus provides a way to cir- printed replicas.
cumvent these problems and start providing • While the majority of sampled visitors had
enhanced, hands-on experiences for BPS visi- heard of 3D printing (98%), understanding
tors (Solima and Tani 2016). of visitors of process of 3D printing is lack-
Overall our understanding of presenting ing, with ~70% not understanding the
3D prints to museum audiences remains in its basic principles. This should be addressed
early stages, but a skeleton of an approach has by complementary information on how it
been highlighted here of the early stage consid- operates if using 3D printing as part of any
erations worth exploring by museum profes- exhibit to prevent confusion.
sionals. In time, once greater understanding of • The use of 3D prints as a tool for present-
visitor preference is acquired, touchable 3D ing objects in exhibitions is under-utilised
printed replicas may become an invaluable and under-researched, highlighting a gulf
resource for museum exhibition and display. of knowledge with regards to physical
properties, authenticity and other modes of
CONCLUSIONS presentation that need to be properly
addressed before the wide-scale implemen-
The data show that the majority of tation of this approach. The trade-off
museum visitors interviewed during this study between realism and manufacturing time
responded positively to the idea of introducing of 3D printing when compared to more
touchable 3D printed replicas to the museum. traditional museum replication methods is
From this study, the following key points can a subject that also needs to be considered.
be drawn: • Touchable 3D printed replicas could be of
value as a tool for more inclusive exhibition
• Museum visitors thought that touchable design, helping to provide access to exhibi-
3D printed replicas could enhance their tions for blind and partially-sighted visitors
museum experience and agreed strongly alongside other marginalized groups
that they should be present in more within the museum environment. END

REFERENCES Chick, A. 2017. Co-creating an Accessible, Multi-

sensory Exhibition with the National Centre for
Abel, R. L., S. Parfitt, N. Ashton, S. G. Lewis, B. Craft & Design and Blind and Partially Sighted
Scott, and C. Stringer. 2011. “Digital Participants. REDO: 2017 Cumulus
Preservation and Dissemination of Ancient International Conference, Kolding Design School,
Lithic Technology with Modern Micro-CT.” Kolding, DK, 30 May – 2 June.
Computers and Graphics 35: 878–84. Classen, C., and D. Howes. 2006. “The Museum as
Baker, J. 2015. “Anarchical Artifacts: Museums as Sensecape: Western Sensibilities and Indigenous
Sites for Radical Otherness.” In The Artifacts.” In Sensible Objects: Colonialism,
International Handbook of Museum Studies: Museums and Material Culture, edited by E.
Museum Theory, edited by A. Witcomb and K. Edwards, C. Gosden and R. B. Phillips, 199–
Message, 63–78. Chicester: John Wiley & Sons. 222. Oxford: Berg.
Bearman, D. 2011. “3D Representations in Museums.” Cronin, C. 2015. “3D Printing: Cultural Property as
Curator: The Museum Journal 54: 55–61. Intellectual Property.” Journal of Laws and the
Bell, D. R. 2016. “Aesthetic Encounter and Learning Arts 39: 1.
in the Museum.” Educational Philosophy and D’Agnano, D., C. Balletti, F. Guerra, and P. Vernier.
Theory 49(8): 776–87. 2015. “Tooteko: A Case Study of Augmented
Bieber, R., and J. Rae 2013. “From the Mind’s Eye: Reality for an Accessible Cultural Heritage.
Museum and Art Gallery Appreciation for the Digitization, 3D Printing and Sensors for an
Blind – Canadian Perspectives.” Disability Audio-Tactile Experience.” The International
Studies Quarterly 33(3). Accessed December 19, Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing
2017. http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3754/ and Spatial Information Sciences XL-5/W4:
3287 207–13.
Bohn, J. W. 1999. “Museums and the Culture of Davidson, B., C. L. Heald, and G. E. Hein. 1999.
Autograpy.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art “Increase Exhibit Accessibility Through
Criticism 57: 55–65. Multisensory Interaction.” In The Educational
Candlin, F. 2003. “Blindness, Art and Exclusion in Role of the Museum, 2nd edn, edited by E.
Museum and Galleries.” The International Hooper-Greenhill, 223–38. London:
Journal of Art and Design Education 22: 100–10. Routledge.
——— 2006. “The Dubious Inheritance of Touch: Di Franco, P. D. G., C. Camporesi, F. Galeazzi,
Art History and Museum Access.” Journal of and M. Kallman. 2015. “3D Printing and
Visual Culture 5: 137–54. Immersive Visualization for Improved
——— 2008. “Museums, Modernity and the Class Perception of Ancient Artifacts.” Presence 24:
Politics of Touching Objects.” In Touch in 243–64.
Museums: Policy and Practice in Object Handling, Dima, M., L. Hurcombe, and M. Wright. 2014.
edited by H. J. Chatterjee, 9–20. Oxford: Berg. “Touching the Past: Haptic Augmented
——— 2010. Art, Museums and Touch. Manchester: Reality for Museum Artefacts.” In Virtual,
Manchester University Press. Augmented and Mixed Reality. Applications of
Capurro, C., D. Nollet, and D. Pletincx. 2014. Virtual Augmented Reality: 6th International
“Tangible interfaces for digital museum Conference, VAMR 2014, Held as Part of
applications: The Virtex and Virtex Light HCI International 2014, Heraklion, Crete,
systems in the Keys to Rome exhibition.” In Greece, June 22-27, Proceedings, Part II,
Proceedings of the 2015 Digital Heritage edited by R. Shumaker and S. Lackey, 3–14.
International Congress, edited by G. Guidi and R. Switzerland: Springer.
Scopigno, 271–6. Granada: IEEE. Dudley, S. H. 2010. “Museum Materialities:
Chatterjee, H. J. 2008. Touch in Museums: Policy and Objects, Sense and Feeling.” In Museums
Practice in Object Handling. Oxford: Berg. Materialities: Objects, Engagements,

Interpretation, edited by S. H. Dudley, 1–15. ——— 2003. “Accountability and Disposal: Visual
Oxon: Routledge. Impairment and the Museum.” Museum and
——— 2012. Museum Objects: Experiencing the Society 1: 104–15.
Properties of Things. London: Routledge. Hooper Greenhill, E. 2007. Museums and Education.
——— 2015. “What, or Where, Is the (Museum) Oxon: Routledge.
Object?: Colonial Encounters in Displayed Karapanos, E., J. Zimmerman, J. Forlizzi, and J. B.
Worlds of Things.” In The International Martens. 2009. User Experience over time: An
Handbook of Museum Studies: Museum Theory, Initial Framework. CHI Conference on Human
edited by A. Witcomb and K. Message, 41–62. Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2008, Boston,
Chicester: John Wiley & Sons. Massachusetts, USA, 7 April.
Du Plessis, A., R. Slabbert, L. C. Swanepoel, J. Els, Kreps, C. 2015. “University Museums as Laboratories
G. J. Booysen, S. Ikram et al. 2015. “Three- for Experiential Learning and Engaged Practice.”
dimensional Model of an Ancient Egyptian Museum Anthropology 38: 96–111.
Falcon Mummy Skeleton.” Rapid Prototyping Krippendorff, K. 2009. “Testing the Reliability of
Journal 21: 368–72. Content Analysis Data: What is involved and
Eardley, A. F., C. Mineiro, J. Neves, and P. Ride. why.” In The Content Analysis Reader, edited by
2016. “Redefining Access: Embracing K. Krippendorff and M. A. Bock, 350–7. Los
Multimodality, Memorability and Shared Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.
Experience in Museums.” Curator: The Museum ——— 2013. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its
Journal 59: 263–86. Methodology. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications
Fantini, M., F. de Crescenzio, F. Persiani, S. Inc.
Benazzi, and G. Gruppioni. 2008. “3D Kumar, J., A. H. G. Abulrun, A. Attridge, and M. A.
Restitution, Restoration and Prototyping of a Williams. 2011. “Effect of X-Ray Computed
Medieval Damaged Skull.” Rapid Prototyping Tomography Scanning Parameters on the
Journal 1: 318–24. Estimated Porosity of Foam Specimens.” Applied
Gibson, I., D. Rosen, and B. Stucker. 2015. Additive Mechanics and Materials 110: 808–15.
Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Kuo, C. W., C. Lin, and M. C. Wang. 2016. “New
Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing. Media Display Technology and Exhibition
New York: Springer. Experience.” ACSIJ Advances in Computer
Goodwin, M. B., and D. S. Chaney. 1995. “Molding, Science: an International Journal 5: 103–9.
Casting, and Painting: Molding and casting: Lacey, S., and K. Sathian. 2014. “Please DO Touch
Techniques and materials.” In Vertebrate the Exhibits! Interactions between Visual
Paleontological Techniques, edited by P. Leiggi Imagery and Haptic Perception.” In The
and P. May, 235–84. Cambridge: Cambridge Multisensory Museum: Crossdisciplinary
University Press. Perspectives on Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory and
Hampp, C., and S. Schwan. 2014. “Perception and Space, edited by N. Levent and A. Pascual-Leone,
evaluation of authentic objects: findings from a 3–16. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield.
visitor study.” Museum Management and Laycock, S. D., G. D. Bell, N. Corps, D. B.
Curatorship 29: 349–67. Mortimore, G. Cox, S. May et al. 2015.
Hartfield, R. 1994. “Challenging the Context: “Using a Combination of Micro-Computed
Perception, Polity and Power.” Curator: The Tomography, CAD and 3D Printing
Museum Journal 37: 42–62. Techniques to Reconstruct Incomplete
Hein, G. E. 1998. Learning in the Museum. London: 19th-Century Cantonese Chess Pieces.” ACM
Routledge. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 7:
Hetherington, K. 2000. “Museums and the Visually 25.
Impaired: The Spatial Politics of Access.” The Le Cabec, A., and M. Toussaint. 2017. “Impacts of
Sociological Review 48: 444–63. Curatorial and Research Practices on the

Preservation of Fossil Hominid Remains.” McKnight, L. M., J. E. Adams, A. Chamberlain, S.

Journal of Anthropological Sciences 95: 1–28. D. Atherton-Woolham, and R. Bibb. 2015.
Leakey, L., and T. Dzamabova. 2013. “Prehistoric “Application of Clinical Imaging and 3D
collections and 3D Printing for Education.” In Printing to the Identification of Anomalies in an
Low-Cost 3D Printing for Science, Education and Ancient Egyptian Animal Mummy.” Journal of
Sustainable Development, edited by E. Canessa, Archaeological Science: Reports 3: 328–32.
C. Fonda and M. Zennaro, 159–62. Trieste: The Mesquita, S., and M. J. Carneiro. 2016.
Abdus Salam International Centre for “Accessibility of European Museums to Visitors
Theoretical Physics. with Visual Impairments.” Disability and Society
Levent, N., and A. Pascual-Leone. 2014. The 31: 373–88.
Multisensory Museum: Cross-disciplinary Metallo, A., and V. Rossi. 2011. “The Future of
Perspectives on Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory and Three-Dimensional Imaging and Museum
Space. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield. Application.” Curator: The Museum Journal 54:
Levent, N., and D. L. McRainey. 2014. “Touch and 63–9.
Narrative in Art and History Museums.” In The Monge, J. M., and A. E. Mann. 2004. “Ethical issues
Multisensory Museum: Cross-disciplinary in the Molding and Casting of Fossil
Perspectives on Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory and Specimens.” In Biological Anthropology and
Space, edited by N. Levent and A. Pascual-Leone, Ethics: From Repatriation to Genetic Identity,
61–81. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield. edited by T. R. Turner, 91–110. New York:
Lindsay, W., N. Larkin, and N. Smith. 1996. State University of New York Press.
“Displaying Dinosaurs at The Natural History M€uller, K. 2002. “Museums and Virtuality.” Curator:
Museum, London.” Curator: The Museum The Museum Journal 45: 21–33.
Journal 39: 262–79. Museums Association. 2015. “Cuts Survey 2015.”
Mahindru, D. V., and P. Mahendru. 2013. “Review Accessed December 19, 2017. https://
of Rapid Prototyping-Technology for the www.museumsassociation.org/campaigns/muse
Future.” Global Journal of Computer Science and um-funding/cuts-survey
Technology Graphics and Vision 13: 27–38. Neum€ uller, M., and A. Reichinger. 2013. “From
Malenka, S. 2000. “The Ritual around Replica: From Stereoscopy to Tactile Photography.”
replicated works of art to art as replica (Part 1).” In PhotoResearcher 19: 59–63.
Objects Speciality Group Postprints, Volume Seven, Neum€ uller, M., A. Reichinger, F. Rist, and C. Kern.
2000, edited by V. Greene and J. S. Johnson, 21– 2014. “3D Printing for Cultural Heritage:
8. Washington DC: The American Institute for Preservation, Accessibility, Research and
Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works. Education.” In 3D Research Challenges, edited by
Marshall, M. T., N. Dulake, L. Ciolfi, D. Duranti, M. Ioannides and E. Quak, 119–34. Berlin
H. Kockelkorn, and D. Petrelli. 2016. Using Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Tangible Smart Replicas as Controls for an Olson, B. R., J. M. Gordon, C. Runnels, and S.
Interactive Museum Exhibition. Proceedings of Chomyszak. 2014. “Experimental Three-
the TEI ‘16: Tenth International Conference on Dimensional Printing of a Lower Palaeolithic
Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction Handaxe: An Assessment of the Technology
14–17 Feb. New York: ACM. and Analytical Value.” Lithic Technology 39:
McGee, C., and F. Rosenberg. 2014. “Art Making 162–72.
as Multisensory Engagement.” In The Paris, S. G. 2002. Perspectives on Object-Centered
Multisensory Museum: Cross-disciplinary Learning in Museums. London: Lawrence
Perspectives on Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory Erlbaum Associates.
and Space, edited by N. Levent and A. Pilegaard, A. 2015. “Experimenting with Material
Pascual-Leone, 29–44. Plymouth: Rowman Strategies in Spatial Exhibition Design.”
and Littlefield. Museum Worlds: Advances in Research 3: 69–85.

Pye, E. 2008a. The Power of Touch: Handling Objects Taylor, A. P. 1973. “Children and Artifacts – A
in Museum and Heritage Contexts. Walnut Creek: Replacement for Textbook Learning.” Curator:
Left Coast Press. The Museum Journal 16: 25–9.
——— 2008b. “Understanding Objects: The Role of Tiballi, A. 2015. “Engaging the Past: Haptics and
Touch in Conservation.” In The Power of Touch: Object-Based Learning in Multiple
Handling Objects in Museum and Heritage Dimensions.” In Engaging the Senses: Object-
Contexts, edited by E. Pye, 121–38. Walnut Based Learning in Higher Education, edited by H.
Creek: Left Coast Press. J. Chatterjee and L. Hannan, 57–75. Surrey:
Rahman, I. A., K. Adcock, and R. J. Garwood. 2012. Ashgate Publishing ltd..
“Virtual Fossils: A New Resource for Science Torabi, K., E. Farjood, and S. Hamedani. 2015.
Communication in Palaeontology.” Evolution: “Rapid Prototyping Technologies and Their
Education and Outreach 5: 635–41. Applications in Prosthiodontics, A Review of
Reeve, J., and V. Woollard. 2015. “Learning, Literature.” Journal of Dentistry, Shiraz
Education, and Public Programs in Museums University of Medical Sciences 16: 1–9.
and Galleries.” In The International Handbooks of Ward, J. 2014. “Multisensory Memories: How
Museum Studies: Museum Practice, edited by C. Richer Experiences Facilitate Remembering.” In
McCarthy, 551–75. Chicester: John and Wiley The Multisensory Museums: Cross-Disciplinary
& Sons. Perspectives on Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory, and
Schorch, P. 2014. “Cultural Feelings and the Making Space, edited by N. Levent and A. Pascual-
of Meaning.” International Journal of Heritage Leone, 273–84. London: Rowman and
Studies 20: 22–35. Littlefield.
Scopigno, R., P. Cignoni, N. Pietroni, M. Callieri, Wehner, K., and M. Sear. 2010. “Engaging the
and M. Dellepiane. 2014. “Digital Fabrication Material World: Object Knowledge and
Technologies of Cultural Heritage (STAR).” In Australian Journeys.” In Museum Materialities:
Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Objects, Engagements, Interpretations, edited by S.
Heritage, edited by R. Klein and P. Santos, 75– H. Dudley, 143–61. Oxon: Routledge.
85. Darmstadt: Eurographics Association. Weisen, M. 2008. “How Accessible are Museum
——— . 2017. “Digital Fabrication Techniques for today?” In Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice
Cultural Heritage: A Survey.” Computer Graphics in Object Handling, edited by H. J. Chatterjee,
Forum 36: 6–21. 243–52. Oxford: Berg.
Solima, L., and M. Tani. 2016. Do not Touch! How Wellings, T., M. A. Williams, and M. Pitts. 2008.
3D Printing can open the way to an accessible “Customer Perception of Switch-feel in Luxury
museum! XXVIII Sinergie Annual Conference: Sports Utility Vehicles.” Food Quality and
Management in a Digital World. Decisions, Preference 19: 737–46.
Production, Communication, University of Udine, Wilson, P., M. A. Williams, J. M. Warnett, A.
Udine, IT. 9-10 June. Attridge, H. Ketchum, J. Hay et al. 2017.
Spence, C., and A. Gallace. 2008. “Making Sense of Utilizing X-Ray Computed Tomography for
Touch.” In Touch in Museums: Policy and Practice Heritage Conservation: the case of Megalosaurus
in Object Handling, edited by H. J. Chatterjee, bucklandii. I2MTC 2017 IEEE International
21–40. Oxford: Berg. Instrumentation and Measurement Technology
Stevensen, R. J. 2014. “The Forgotten Sense: Using Conference, Torino, Italy, 22-25 May.
Olfaction in a Museum Context: A Witcomb, A. 2015. “Toward a Pedagogy of Feeling:
Neuroscience Perspective.” In The Multisensory Understanding How Museums Create a Space
Museums: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on for Cross-Cultural Encounters.” In The
Touch, Sound, Smell, Memory, and Space, edited International Handbook of Museum Studies:
by N. Levent and A. Pascual-Leone, 151–66. Museum Theory, edited by A. Witcomb and K.
London: Rowman and Littlefield. Message, 312–44. Chicester: John Wiley & Son.

Evaluation of Touchable 3D Printed Replicas in Museums

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of Touchable 3D Printed Replicas in Museums

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Volume 60 Number 4 October 2017

Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

INTRODUCTION nobles were allowed to handle artefacts, a

© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 445

446 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

Paul F. Wilson et al. 447

448 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

450 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

RESULTS while 29% expressed a degree of understanding

Paul F. Wilson et al. 451

452 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

Paul F. Wilson et al. 453

454 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

Paul F. Wilson et al. 455

456 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

Paul F. Wilson et al. 457

458 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

Paul F. Wilson et al. 459

460 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

Paul F. Wilson et al. 461

REFERENCES Chick, A. 2017. Co-creating an Accessible, Multi-

462 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

Paul F. Wilson et al. 463

Preservation of Fossil Hominid Remains.” McKnight, L. M., J. E. Adams, A. Chamberlain, S.

464 Article: Evaluation of Touchable 3D-Printed Replicas in Museums

Paul F. Wilson et al. 465

You might also like