Immersive Mixed Reality for Manufacturing Training

González-Franco, Mar; Pizarro, Rodrigo; Cermeron, Julio; Li, Katie; Thorn, Jacob; Hutabarat, Windo; Tiwari, Ashutosh; Bermell-García, Pablo

doi:10.3389/frobt.2017.00003

Cited by 72 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the influence of VR on training outcomes, and empirical reports have showed heterogeneous results (Dubovi et al, 2017;Gonzalez-Franco et al, 2017;Makowski et al, 2017;Jung and Ahn, 2018;Makransky et al, 2019). Logishetty et al (2019) found that surgeons trained using VR were more accurate in performing a total hip arthroplasty procedure compared to those that had undertaken the standard training.…”

Section: Vr Technology In Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Virtual Reality Alone Does Not Promote Training Performance (but Sense of Presence Does)

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual reality (VR) offers novel ways to develop skills and learning. This technology can be used to enhance the way we educate and train professionals by possibly being more effective, cost-efficient, and reducing training-related risks. However, the potential benefits from virtual training assume that the trained skills can be transferred to the real world. Nevertheless, in the current published scientific literature, there is limited empirical evidence that links VR use to better learning. The present investigation aimed to explore the use of VR as a tool for training procedural skills and compare this modality with traditional instruction methods. To investigate skill development using the two forms of training, participants were randomly divided into two groups. The first group received training through an instructional video, while the second group trained in VR. After the training session, the participants performed the trained task in a real setting, and task performance was measured. Subsequently, the user's experienced sense of presence and simulator sickness (SS) was measured with self-report questionnaires. There were no significant differences between groups for any of the performance measures. There was no gender effect on performance. Importantly, the results of the present study indicate that a high sense of presence during the VR simulation might contribute to increased skill learning. These findings can be used as a starting point that could be of value when further exploring VR as a tool for skill development.

show abstract

Section: Vr Technology In Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Virtual Reality Alone Does Not Promote Training Performance (but Sense of Presence Does)

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They concluded that an augmented reality platform was more suitable for training of this type of tasks and encouraged further evaluation of virtual reality based training. In a more recent study Gonzalez-Franco et al compared collaborative conventional face-to-face training with a mixed reality training setup for a manufacturing procedure of an aircraft door [6]. Their results indicated that performance levels yielded by the immersive mixed reality training system were not significantly different from the conventional face-to-face training format.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Virtual and Physical Training Transfer of Bimanual Assembly Tasks

Murcia-Lopez

Steed

2018

IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As we explore the use of consumer virtual reality technology for training applications, there is a need to evaluate its validity compared to more traditional training formats. In this paper, we present a study that compares the effectiveness of virtual training and physical training for teaching a bimanual assembly task. In a between-subjects experiment, 60 participants were trained to solve three 3D burr puzzles in one of six conditions comprised of virtual and physical training elements. In the four physical conditions, training was delivered via paper- and video-based instructions, with or without the physical puzzles to practice with. In the two virtual conditions, participants learnt to assemble the puzzles in an interactive virtual environment, with or without 3D animations showing the assembly process. After training, we conducted immediate tests in which participants were asked to solve a physical version of the puzzles. We measured performance through success rates and assembly completion testing times. We also measured training times as well as subjective ratings on several aspects of the experience. Our results show that the performance of virtually trained participants was promising. A statistically significant difference was not found between virtual training with animated instructions and the best performing physical condition (in which physical blocks were available during training) for the last and most complex puzzle in terms of success rates and testing times. Performance in retention tests two weeks after training was generally not as good as expected for all experimental conditions. We discuss the implications of the results and highlight the validity of virtual reality systems in training.

show abstract

“…However, this needs to be taken into account, as using Unity might increase the latency. Nevertheless, we believe that using an interfacing program such as Unity would be a normal use to access the cameras and produce synthetic video for future rendering of see-through and mixed reality systems that combine both video and synthetic content [26,51].…”

Section: Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use video see-through AR devices for multiple reasons: (i) they provide access for good hardware instrumentation-based measurements to have robust system comparisons; (ii) they enable an AR experience while enjoying the field of view of VR [9] in which we can blend with a real world view [26,30,56] and modify its content if required [51].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring System Visual Latency through Cognitive Latency on Video See-Through AR devices

Gruen¹,

Ofek²,

Steed³

et al. 2020

2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Figure 1: Latency was tested both through a hardware instrumentation-based measurement (bottom left) and the new cognitive latency technique (bottom right) on four different devices. The first device, Prism, was an ad-hoc system that attached a pair of colour cameras to an Acer Windows Mixed Reality device (1 top left). This system aimed at providing a top end video see-through quality. We also tested Oculus Quest (2), Oculus Rift S (3) and the Valve Index (4). On the Bottom Left, hardware instrumentation-based measurement setup. Cameras (A and B) are synchronized to capture at the exact same time by the board (2). While (1) is a clock running at sub-millisecond accuracy. The clock for camera (B) is seen by the HMD (3), which displays the video see-through. The scene was kept well illuminated to reduce automatic exposure time problems of the HMD cameras. On the Bottom Right, a participant performing the rapid decision making task while wearing a see-through VR headset.

show abstract

Immersive Mixed Reality for Manufacturing Training

Cited by 72 publications

References 39 publications

The Use of Virtual Reality Alone Does Not Promote Training Performance (but Sense of Presence Does)

The Use of Virtual Reality Alone Does Not Promote Training Performance (but Sense of Presence Does)

A Comparison of Virtual and Physical Training Transfer of Bimanual Assembly Tasks

Measuring System Visual Latency through Cognitive Latency on Video See-Through AR devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About