Evaluation of Wearable Simulation Interface for Military Training

Objective: This research evaluated the training effectiveness of a novel simulation interface, a wearable computer integrated into a soldier’s load-bearing equipment. Background: Military teams often use game-based simulators on desktop computers to train squad-level procedures. A wearable computer interface that mimics the soldier’s equipment was expected to provide better training through increased realism and immersion. Method: A heuristic usability evaluation and two experiments were conducted. Eight evaluators interacted with both wearable and desktop interfaces and completed a usability survey. The first experiment compared the training retention of the wearable interface with a desktop simulator and interactive training video. The second experiment compared the training transfer of the wearable and desktop simulators with a live training environment. Results: Results indicated the wearable interface was more difficult to use and elicited stronger symptoms of simulator sickness. There was no significant difference in training retention between the wearable, desktop, or interactive video training methods. The live training used in the second experiment provided superior training transfer than the simulator conditions, with no difference between the desktop and wearable. Conclusion: The wearable simulator interface did not provide better training than the desktop computer interface. It also had poorer usability and caused worse simulator sickness. Therefore, it was a less effective training tool. Application: This research illustrates the importance of conducting empirical evaluations of novel training technologies. New and innovative technologies are always coveted by users, but new does not always guarantee improvement.

[1]  Gianluca Castelnuovo,et al.  The Sense of Presence in Virtual Training: Enhancing Skills Acquisition and Transfer of Knowledge through Learning Experience in Virtual Environments , 2003 .

[2]  G. Riva,et al.  Being There: Concepts, Effects and Measurements of User Presence in Synthetic Environments , 2003 .

[3]  M. Lepper,et al.  Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. , 1993 .

[4]  E. Thorndike,et al.  The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). , 1901 .

[5]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire , 1998, Presence.

[6]  Christian J. Jerome,et al.  Development and Evaluation of the Game-Based Performance Assessment Battery (GamePAB) and Game Experience Measure (GEM) , 2009 .

[7]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[8]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Chapter 4 – The Usability Engineering Lifecycle , 1993 .

[9]  Susanne P. Lajoie,et al.  Motivational Techniques of Expert Human Tutors: Lessons for the Design of Computer-Based Tutors , 2013 .

[10]  Rs Kennedy,et al.  A simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) : A new method for quantifying simulator sickness , 1993 .

[11]  C. Wickens.  Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[12]  N. Seymour.  VR to OR: A Review of the Evidence that Virtual Reality Simulation Improves Operating Room Performance , 2008, World Journal of Surgery.

[13]  John S. Barnett,et al.  Usability of Wearable and Desktop Game-Based Simulations: A Heuristic Evaluation , 2010 .

[14]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  When Are Tutorial Dialogues More Effective Than Reading? , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. , 1993 .

[16]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[17]  Bob G. Witmer,et al.  Human Performance in Virtual Environments: Effects of Presence, Immersive Tendency, and Simulator Sickness , 2004 .

[18]  G. Riva,et al.  Sense of Presence in Virtual Training : Enhancing Skills Acquisition and Transfer of Knowledge through Learning Experience in Virtual Environments , 2002 .

[19]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[20]  Robert J. Pleban,et al.  Functional Capabilities of Four Virtual Individual Combatant (VIC) Simulator Technologies: An Independent Assessment , 1998 .

[21]  Terry E. Duncan,et al.  Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. , 1989, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[22]  Bruce W Knerr.  Immersive Simulation Training for the Dismounted Soldier , 2007 .

[23]  J. Bermúdez,et al.  Personality Psychology in Europe , 1997 .

[24]  John H. Bailey,et al.  Training Dismounted Soldiers in Virtual Environments: Route Learning and Transfer. , 1995 .

[25]  Glenn A. Martin,et al.  GamePAB: A Game-Based Performance Assessment Battery Application , 2008 .

[26]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  The Factor Structure of the Presence Questionnaire , 2005, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[27]  Donald R. Lampton,et al.  Embedded Training for Future Force Warriors: An Assessment of Wearable Virtual Simulators , 2006 .

[28]  Robert T. Hays,et al.  Simulation Fidelity in Training System Design , 1989 .

[29]  Ben Jamin Kotkov.  Principles of Training , 1966 .

[30]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier Training and Performance: Results, Recommendations, and Issues. , 1998 .