Enhancing virtual environment spatial awareness training and transfer through tactile and vestibular cues

Ergonomics

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 187-203

  Hale, K S ^a   Stanney, K M ^a,b   Malone, L ^b  

^a Design Interactive Inc   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Haptics; Multimodal; Tactile; Training; Virtual environment

Indexed keywords

DESIGN GUIDELINES; HAPTIC INTERACTIONS; HAPTICS; HEAD TRACKING; LEARNING AND TRAINING; MULTI-MODAL; PERFORMANCE BENEFITS; SPATIAL AWARENESS; TACTILE CUES; TRAINING SYSTEMS; VESTIBULAR CUES; VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS;

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT;

VIRTUAL REALITY;

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; AWARENESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; KNOWLEDGE; LEARNING; MALE; SKILL; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TACTILE STIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAINING; VESTIBULAR STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ASSOCIATION; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; MILITARY PHENOMENA; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; TOUCH; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COHORT STUDIES; CUES; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MILITARY SCIENCE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SPACE PERCEPTION; TOUCH; TOUCH PERCEPTION; UNITED STATES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67650394226     PISSN: 00140139     EISSN: 13665847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00140130802376000     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Akamatsu, M., 1994. Touch with a mouse: a mouse type interface device with tactile and force display. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication, 18-20 July 1994, Nagoya, Japan Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc., 140-144.
2. Bakker, N., Werkhoven, P., and Passenier, P., 1998. Aiding orientation performance in virtual environments with proprioceptive feedback. In: Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality annual international symposium, 14-18 March 1998, Atlanta, GA. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 28-35.
3. Biggs, S.J. and Srinivasan, M.A., 2002. Haptic interfaces. In: K.M. Stanney, ed. Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 93-115.
4. Brooks, B.M., et al., 2002. An evaluation of the efficacy of training people with learning disabilities in a virtual environment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24 (11-12), 622-626.
5. Clark, R.E. and Voogel, A., 1985. Transfer of training principles for instructional design. Communication and Technology Journal, 33 (2), 113-123.
6. Cooper, G.E. and Harper, R.P., 1969. The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities. NASA TN D-5153. Washington, DC: NASA.
7. Dalgarno, B. and Harper, J., 2003. 3D environments for spatial learning: The importance of learning task design. In: G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker, and J. Baron, eds. Interact: Integrate: Impact - Proceedings of the 20th annual conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Figtree, New South Wales, Australia: Ascilite, 142-151.
8. Department of the Navy, 1999. Close combat. US Marine Corps MCRP 3-02B. Washington, DC: Headquarters United States Marine Corps.
9. Endsley, M.R., 1995. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37 (1), 32-64.
10. Endsley, M.R., 2000. Direct measurement of situation awareness: validity and use of SAGAT. In: M.R. Endsley and D.J. Garland, eds. Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 147-174.
11. Figliozzi, F., Guariglia, P., Silvetti, M., Siegler, I., and Doricchi, F., 2005. Effects of vestibular rotatory accelerations on covert attentional orienting in vision and touch. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1638-1651.
12. Foreman, N., et al., 2003. Spatial knowledge of a real school environment acquired from virtual or physical models by able-bodied children and children with physical disabilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9 (2), 67-74.
13. Gaggioli, A., 2001. Using virtual reality in experimental psychology. In: G. Riva and C. Galimberti, eds. Towards cyberpsychology: Mind, cognition, and society in the Internet age. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press, 157-174.
14. Hale, K., et al., in press. Multimodal sensory information requirements for enhancing situation awareness and training effectiveness. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science: Special Issue Optimizing Virtual Training Systems.
15. Hart, S. and Staveland, L., 1988. Development of NASATLX: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: P. Hancock and N. Meshkai, eds. Human mental workload. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 239-250.
16. Ho, C., Tan, H.Z., and Spence, C., 2006. The differential effect of vibrotactile and auditory cues on visual spatial attention. Ergonomics, 49 (7), 724-738.
17. Kennedy, R.S., et al., 1993. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 203-220.
18. Kenyon, R. and Afenya, M., 1995. Training in virtual and real environments. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 23 (4), 445-455.
19. Klatzky, R.L., et al., 1998. Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychological Science, 9, 293-298.
20. Lindeman, R.W., et al., 2005. Effectiveness of directional vibrotactile cuing on a building-clearing task. In: Proceedings of CHI 2005, 2-7 April 2005, Portland, Oregon: Association for Computing Machinery, 271-280
21. Loomis, J.M., et al., 1995. Evaluating the sensory inputs to path integration. In: Paper presented at the Psychonomic Society Meeting, 10-12 November 1995, Los Angeles, CA.
22. McGrath, B.J., et al., 2004. Tactile situation awareness system flight demonstration final report. USAARL 2004-10. Ft. Rucker, AL: Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
23. Massimino, M. and Sheridan, T., 1993. Sensory substitution for force feedback in teleoperation. Presence, 2 (4), 344-352.
24. Matthews, M.D., et al., 2000. Measures of infantry situation awareness for a virtual MOUT environment. In: Proceedings of the human performance, situation awareness and automation: User centered design for the new millennium conference, 15-19 October 2000, Savannah, GA [online]. Available from: http://www.satechnologies.com/Papers/pdf/HPSAA2000-armySA.pdf [Accessed 15 August 2005].
25. Mulgund, S., et al., 2002. Human/machine interface modalities for solider systems technologies. Technical Report No. 71950-00 submitted to the U.S. Army Natick Solider Center. TIAX, LCC.
26. Rose, F.D., et al., 1998. Transfer of training from virtual to real environments. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on disability, virtual reality & associated technologies (ICDVRAT), 10-11 September 1998, Skovde, Sweden UK: ECDVRAT and University of Reading, 69-75.
27. Rose, F.D., Brooks, B.M., and Attree, E.A., 2002. An exploratory investigation into the usability and usefulness of training people with learning disabilities in a virtual environment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24 (11-12), 627-633.
28. Ruddle, R.A. and Peruch, P., 2004. Effects of proprioceptive feedback and environmental characteristics on spatial learning in virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 299-326.
29. Rupert, A., 1997. Which way is down? Naval Aviation News, (March/April), 16-17.
30. Shamo, M.K., Dror, R., and Degani, A., 1999. A multidimensional evaluation methodology for new cockpit systems. In: R.S. Jensen, ed. Proceedings of the 10th international aviation psychology symposium, 3-6 May 1999. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, 821-826. [online]. Available from: http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/ people/asaf/aviation_safety/pdf/Multi-dimensional% 20eval.pdf [Accessed 13 November 2007].
31. Stanney, K.M., et al., 2002. Human performance in immersive virtual environments: Effects of duration, user control, and scene complexity. Human Performance, 15 (4), 339-366.
32. Stanney, K.M., et al., in press. Deriving training strategies for spatial knowledge acquisition from behavioral, cognitive, and neural foundations. Military Psychology.
33. Stoffregen, T.A., et al., 2002. Vestibular adaptation and aftereffects. In: K.M. Stanney, ed. Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 773-790.
34. Stone, R.J., 2002. Applications of virtual environments: An overview. In: K.M. Stanney, ed. Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 827-856.
35. Tan, H.Z., et al., 2003. A haptic back display for attentional and directional cueing. Haptics-e, 3 (1). [online]. Available from: http://www.haptics-e.org [Accessed 13 November 2003].
36. Taylor, R.M., 1990. Situational awareness rating technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. Situation awareness in aerospace operations AGARD-CP-478. Neville Sure Seine, France: NATOAGARD, 3/1-3/17.
37. Terrence, P.I., Brill, J.C., and Gilson, R.D., 2005. Body orientation and the perception of spatial auditory and tactile cues. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th annual meeting. Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1663-1667.
38. Van Erp, J.B.F., 2005. Presenting directions with a vibrotactile torso display. Ergonomics, 48 (3), 302-313. _rfaut van Erp J.B.F.
39. Waller, D., Hunt, E., and Knapp, D., 1998. The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual environment training. Presence, 7 (2), 129-143.
40. Witmer, B.G. and Kline, P.B., 1998. Judging perceived and traversed distance in virtual environments. Presence, 7 (2), 144-167.
41. Witmer, B.G. and Singer, M.J., 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 225-240.