scholarly journals The Use of Visual and Auditory Feedback for Assembly Task Performance in a Virtual Environment

Author(s):  
Ying Zhang ◽  
T. Fernando ◽  
R. Sotudeh ◽  
Hannan Xiao
Indoor Air ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seungkeun Yeom ◽  
Hakpyeong Kim ◽  
Taehoon Hong ◽  
Changyoon Ji ◽  
Dong‐Eun Lee

2018 ◽  
Vol 125 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-399
Author(s):  
Louis Koolidge ◽  
Robyn M. Holmes

This study explored the effects of background music on cognitive (puzzle assembly) task performance in young children. Participants were 87 primarily European-American children (38 boys, 49 girls; mean age = 4.77 years) enrolled in early childhood classes in the northeastern United States. Children were given one minute to complete a 12-piece puzzle task in one of three background music conditions: music with lyrics, music without lyrics, and no music. The music selection was “You’re Welcome” from the Disney movie “Moana.” Results revealed that children who heard the music without lyrics completed more puzzle pieces than children in either the music with lyrics or no music condition. Background music without distracting lyrics may be beneficial and superior to background music with lyrics for young children’s cognitive performance even when they are engaged independently in a nonverbal task.


1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 435-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl-Erik Bystrom ◽  
Woodrow Barfield

This paper describes a study on the sense of presence and task performance in a virtual environment as affected by copresence (one subject working alone versus two subjects working as partners), level of control (control of movement and control of navigation through the virtual environment), and head tracking. Twenty subjects navigated through six versions of a virtual environment and were asked to identify changes in locations of objects within the environment. After each trial, subjects completed a questionnaire designed to assess their level of presence within the virtual environment. Results indicated that collaboration did not increase the sense of presence in the virtual environment, but did improve the quality of the experience in the virtual environment. Level of control did not affect the sense of presence, but subjects did prefer to control both movement and navigation. Head tracking did not affect the sense of presence, but did contribute to the spatial realism of the virtual environment. Task performance was affected by the presence of another individual, by head tracking, and by level of control, with subjects performing significantly more poorly when they were both alone and without control and head tracking. In addition, a factor analysis indicated that questions designed to assess the subjects' experience in the virtual environment could be grouped into three factors: (1) presence in the virtual environment, (2) quality of the virtual environment, and (3) task difficulty.


1983 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-158
Author(s):  
M.W. Riley ◽  
J.L. Ballard ◽  
D.J. Cochran ◽  
C.C. Chang

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0261063
Author(s):  
Sachiyo Ueda ◽  
Kazuya Nagamachi ◽  
Junya Nakamura ◽  
Maki Sugimoto ◽  
Masahiko Inami ◽  
...  

Visual perspective taking is inferring how the world looks to another person. To clarify this process, we investigated whether employing a humanoid avatar as the viewpoint would facilitate an imagined perspective shift in a virtual environment, and which factor of the avatar is effective for the facilitation effect. We used a task that involved reporting how an object looks by a simple direction judgment, either from the avatar’s position or from the position of an empty chair. We found that the humanoid avatar’s presence improved task performance. Furthermore, the avatar’s facilitation effect was observed only when the avatar was facing the visual stimulus to be judged; performance was worse when it faced backwards than when there was only an empty chair facing forwards. This suggests that the avatar does not simply attract spatial attention, but the posture of the avatar is crucial for the facilitation effect. In addition, when the directions of the head and the torso were opposite (i.e., an impossible posture), the avatar’s facilitation effect disappeared. Thus, visual perspective taking might not be facilitated by the avatar when its posture is biomechanically impossible because we cannot embody it. Finally, even when the avatar’s head of the possible posture was covered with a bucket, the facilitation effect was found with the forward-facing avatar rather than the backward-facing avatar. That is, the head/gaze direction cue, or presumably the belief that the visual stimulus to be judged can be seen by the avatar, was not required. These results suggest that explicit perspective taking is facilitated by embodiment towards humanoid avatars.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document