User's behaviours in a collaborative task - real vs. virtual environments

This paper reports the results of a pilot study evaluating the performance of healthy volunteers working in pairs to fulfil a collaborative task in both real and virtual environments. The main aim of this study is to investigate how different environments (real vs. virtual) and communication modalities (with vs. without talking to each other) affect the quality of interaction between humans. The results suggest that doing the task in the virtual world was more difficult and required more effort to complete than doing it in the real world even though the virtual world task was reported to be more engaging. Participants employed different strategies in each environment in order to successfully complete each task. The results from this study could be used to develop a more elaborate model that predicts each user's behaviour in a collaborative task, which could in turn be used for remote interaction between users mediated by robotic/haptic interfaces.

[1]  Etienne Burdet,et al.  Dissociating Variability and Effort as Determinants of Coordination , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[2]  Martin Loomes,et al.  Soundscape and haptic cues in an interactive painting: A study with autistic children , 2014, 5th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics.

[3]  M.J. Johnson,et al.  TheraDrive: a new stroke therapy concept for home-based, computer-assisted motivating rehabilitation , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[4]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  Human-Like Adaptation of Force and Impedance in Stable and Unstable Interactions , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[5]  J.M. Winters,et al.  Enhanced TheraJoy technology for use in upper-extremity stroke rehabilitation , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[6]  Martin Loomes,et al.  A haptically enhanced painting as a tool for neurorehabilitation , 2013, 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR).

[7]  Vincent S. Huang,et al.  Robotic neurorehabilitation: a computational motor learning perspective , 2009, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[8]  I. Robertson,et al.  Rehabilitation of brain damage: brain plasticity and principles of guided recovery. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Game theory - Analysis of Conflict , 1991 .

[10]  Peter J. Kyberd,et al.  Bridging the gap between robotic technology and health care , 2014, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[11]  D. Reinkensmeyer,et al.  Java Therapy : Web-Based Robotic Rehabilit ation , 2001 .

[12]  M.J. Johnson,et al.  Collaborative Tele-rehabilitation: A Strategy for Increasing Engagement , 2006, The First IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, 2006. BioRob 2006..

[13]  Grigore C. Burdea,et al.  A virtual-reality-based telerehabilitation system with force feedback , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine.

[14]  E. Burdet,et al.  A Framework to Describe, Analyze and Generate Interactive Motor Behaviors , 2012, PloS one.

[15]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  Interaction Force, Impedance and Trajectory Adaptation: By Humans, for Robots , 2010, ISER.

[16]  P. Bach-y-Rita,et al.  Computer-Assisted Motivating Rehabilitation (CAMR) for Institutional, Home, and Educational Late Stroke Programs , 2002, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.