A comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional interfaces for editing surfaces reconstructed from contours

As technology advances, there is a growing fascination with three-dimensional (3D) object representations that likely comes from their greater ability to match "real life" than their two-dimensional (2D) counterparts. Unfortunately, most techniques for manipulating objects in a 3D environment are developed for conventional hardware configurations that use 2D input devices and CRT displays.;As part of my research, I implemented an interactive contour editor to edit 3D surfaces that were reconstructed from planar contours. More precisely, the editor is a tool for visualising a surface derived from a set of serial sections, and for removing deformations from this surface. It was designed specifically to remove artefacts from medical images of arteries.;I used the interface from my editor in an experiment that tested whether users were faster and more accurate at manipulating surfaces in a 2D environment or a 3D environment. Despite the inherent constraints in the surfaces, participants were faster at editing in 2D for all types of deformations, while maintaining a consistent accuracy between 2D and 3D. Participants did perceive a 3D environment to be better than a 2D environment for manipulating a group of points that spanned multiple contours, although this was not reflected in the quantitative results. The intuitive preference for 3D in this situation leads me to believe that it is worth continuing the search for a natural and effective interface for editing surfaces in a 3D environment. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).