Impacts of using a head-worn display on gait performance during level walking and obstacle crossing.

Use of a head-worn display (HWD) may affect gait performance and increase slip and trip risks, though there is a lack of information on such effects. This study investigated how different display technologies (monocular and binocular HWDs, and a paper list) and visual information presentation modes affect gait performance. Twelve gender-balanced participants completed walking and obstacle crossing trials on a linear walking track under all experimental conditions and a baseline control (without using a technology). During these trials, information relevant to a simulated light assembly task was provided, as representative of a potential occupational application. Gait performance was assessed based on minimum foot clearance (MFC), required coefficient of friction, foot placement locations around the obstacle, and/or walking/obstacle crossing speed. Use of a HWD had no substantial effects on level walking performance. A more conservative/cautious obstacle crossing strategy was, however, observed with HWD use, including a decrease (∼3%) in obstacle crossing speed (compared to the baseline). Gender-specific foot control strategies (lead foot MFC) were also observed that depended on the specific display technology and information modes. Foot placements around the obstacle were not influenced by use of the binocular HWD, yet a conservative strategy was observed with the monocular HWD.

[1]  A. Patla,et al.  Visual control of limb trajectory over obstacles during locomotion: effect of obstacle height and width , 1993 .

[2]  Wen-Ruey Chang,et al.  State of science: occupational slips, trips and falls on the same level , 2016, Ergonomics.

[3]  Sylvie Leclercq,et al.  Similarities between work related musculoskeletal disorders and slips, trips and falls , 2015, Ergonomics.

[4]  Peng Zhang,et al.  Binocular Rivalry Requires Visual Attention , 2011, Neuron.

[5]  K. Aminian,et al.  Stride-to-stride variability while enumerating animal names among healthy young adults: result of stride velocity or effect of attention-demanding task? , 2008, Gait & posture.

[6]  R. van Emmerik,et al.  Dual task interference during walking: The effects of texting on situational awareness and gait stability. , 2015, Gait & posture.

[7]  David Whitaker,et al.  Google Glass Glare: disability glare produced by a head‐mounted visual display , 2016, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[8]  Aurelio Cappozzo,et al.  Gender differences in the control of the upper body accelerations during level walking. , 2009, Gait & posture.

[9]  Maury A. Nussbaum,et al.  Augmented Reality “Smart Glasses” in the Workplace: Industry Perspectives and Challenges for Worker Safety and Health , 2016 .

[10]  J. Wann,et al.  Stepping over obstacles: attention demands and aging. , 2009, Gait & posture.

[11]  Ming-I Brandon Lin,et al.  The impact of walking while using a smartphone on pedestrians' awareness of roadside events. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  Tim Bentley,et al.  The role of latent and active failures in workplace slips, trips and falls: an information processing approach. , 2009, Applied ergonomics.

[13]  T. Lockhart,et al.  Dual-Task Does Not Increase Slip and Fall Risk in Healthy Young and Older Adults during Walking , 2017, Applied bionics and biomechanics.

[14]  Peter R. Cavanagh,et al.  A three-dimensional approach to the calculation of foot clearance during locomotion , 1999 .

[15]  Takashi Kawai,et al.  Visual task performance using a monocular see-through head-mounted display (HMD) while walking. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[16]  O. Bock,et al.  Age-related deficits of dual-task walking: the role of foot vision. , 2011, Gait & posture.

[17]  Timothy A Worden,et al.  Measuring the effects of a visual or auditory Stroop task on dual-task costs during obstacle crossing. , 2016, Gait & posture.

[18]  Willibald A. Günthner,et al.  Pick-by-vision: augmented reality supported order picking , 2009, The Visual Computer.

[19]  Thad Starner,et al.  An empirical task analysis of warehouse order picking using head-mounted displays , 2010, CHI.

[20]  Cara M. Wall-Scheffler,et al.  Gender differences in walking and running on level and inclined surfaces. , 2008, Clinical biomechanics.

[21]  A. Schultz,et al.  Stepping over obstacles: gait patterns of healthy young and old adults. , 1991, Journal of gerontology.

[22]  Wen-Ruey Chang,et al.  The Effect of Transverse Shear Force on the Required Coefficient of Friction for Level Walking , 2011, Hum. Factors.

[23]  T. P. Caudell,et al.  Augmented reality: an application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes , 1992, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[24]  Gunter P Siegmund,et al.  Adaptations to normal human gait on potentially slippery surfaces: the effects of awareness and prior slip experience. , 2006, Gait & posture.

[25]  Andrew Merryweather,et al.  Gait Characteristics Associated with Trip-Induced Falls on Level and Sloped Irregular Surfaces , 2011 .

[26]  Cheri Speier,et al.  The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[27]  W. Warren,et al.  The role of central and peripheral vision in postural control duringwalking , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Penelope M Sanderson,et al.  Monitoring with Head-Mounted Displays: Performance and Safety in a Full-Scale Simulator and Part-Task Trainer , 2009, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[29]  A B Schultz,et al.  Stepping over obstacles: dividing attention impairs performance of old more than young adults. , 1996, The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences.

[30]  F. Veldpaus,et al.  A least-squares algorithm for the equiform transformation from spatial marker co-ordinates. , 1988, Journal of biomechanics.