Virtual Training for Procedural Skills Development: Case Studies and Lessons Learnt

Virtual environments (VEs) represent a computer-generated three-dimensional (3D) environment and are perceived to facilitate human perception and the comprehension of complex concepts and/or enhance the human ability to perform complex psychomotor tasks. A generic immersive VE possesses the features of 3D immersion, multisensory cues, and frame of reference (FOR). The overall virtual training (VT) system architecture uses a modular approach where different software modules process information independently. A multidimensional user-centered systematic training evaluation (MUSTe) method is adopted to assess cognitive, affective, and skill-based learning in the VT system. This chapter demonstrates that individual's characteristics and VT design features that can influence user task performance and cognitive learning outcomes, regardless of levels of expertise. The experiment suggested some of the complexities and problems encountered in applying individual difference research to the user-centered design of haptic-audio-visual training systems.

[1]  Terence R. Mitchell,et al.  Predicting self-efficacy and performance during skill acquisition , 1994 .

[2]  Bryce Allen.  Individual differences and the conundrums of user-centered design: two experiments , 2000 .

[3]  Megumi Nakao,et al.  A model for sharing haptic interaction , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Haptics.

[4]  Maria Virvou,et al.  On the usability and likeability of virtual reality games for education: The case of VR-ENGAGE , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[5]  Domenico Pascarella,et al.  Dependability issues in visual-haptic interfaces , 2010, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[6]  Jim X. Chen,et al.  A Model for Understanding How Virtual Reality Aids Complex Conceptual Learning , 1999, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[7]  Sissel Guttormsen Schär.  The influence of the user interface on solving well- and ill-defined problems , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[8]  Fred D. Davis.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[9]  David B. Kaber,et al.  Situation awareness and attention allocation measures for quantifying telepresence experiences in teleoperation , 2004 .

[10]  R. Bowen Loftin,et al.  VR's frames of reference: a visualization technique for mastering abstract multidimensional information , 1999, CHI '99.

[11]  M Steffin,et al.  Virtual reality therapy of multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury: design consideration for a haptic-visual interface. , 1997, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[12]  C. Cassel,et al.  Toward a Person‐centered Medicine: Religious Studies in the Medical Curriculum , 1995, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[13]  Alexandre N. Tuch,et al.  Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users' experience, physiology, performance, and memory , 2009, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  Alistair G. Sutcliffe,et al.  Evaluating the usability of virtual reality user interfaces , 2000, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[15]  Doug A. Bowman,et al.  A Survey of Usability Evaluation in Virtual Environments: Classification and Comparison of Methods , 2002, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[16]  Kar Yan Tam,et al.  Determinants of User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: An Empirical Examination of Individual Differences and System Characteristics , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[17]  Xing-Dong Yang,et al.  Validating the Performance of Haptic Motor Skill Training , 2008, 2008 Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems.

[18]  Alistair G. Sutcliffe,et al.  Presence, memory and interaction in virtual environments , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[19]  Chaomei Chen.  Individual differences in a spatial-semantic virtual environment , 2000 .

[20]  Earl Hunt,et al.  The Transfer of Spatial Knowledge in Virtual Environment Training , 1998, Presence.

[21]  Jeremy R. Cooperstock,et al.  Touch Is Everywhere: Floor Surfaces as Ambient Haptic Interfaces , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Haptics.

[22]  Alexander Becker,et al.  Innovative Beschaffungsportfolios und X-Balanced Scorecards , 2006 .

[23]  K. S. Hale,et al.  Enhancing virtual environment spatial awareness training and transfer through tactile and vestibular cues , 2009, Ergonomics.

[24]  R. Moreno,et al.  Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[25]  Tony Manninen,et al.  RICH INTERACTION MODEL FOR GAME AND VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT DESIGN , 2004 .

[26]  T. Koschmann.  Medical education and computer literacy: learning about, through, and with computers. , 1995, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[27]  Magid Igbaria,et al.  The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage , 1995 .

[28]  Mansooreh Mollaghasemi,et al.  Usability engineering of virtual environments (VEs): identifying multiple criteria that drive effective VE system design , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[29]  Christoph Schierz,et al.  The Effect of the Interface on Learning Style in a Simulation-Based Learning Situation , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[30]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  An atlas of physical human-robot interaction , 2008 .

[31]  Gregory R. Crane,et al.  The impact of digital libraries on cognitive processes: psychological issues of hypermedia , 2003, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[32]  Syed Haque,et al.  A meta-analysis of the training effectiveness of virtual reality surgical simulators , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine.