Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of force feedback and auditory cues for performance of an assembly task in an immersive virtual environment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using an immersive virtual environment, this study investigated whether the inclusion of force feedback or auditory cues improved manipulation performance and subjective reports of usability for an assembly task. Twenty-four volunteers (12 males and 12 females) were required to assemble and then disassemble five interconnecting virtual parts with either auditory, force, or no feedback cues provided. Performance for the assembly task was measured using completion time and number of collisions between parts, while the users’ preferences across conditions were evaluated using subjective reports of usability. The results indicated that the addition of force feedback slowed completion time and led to more collisions between parts for males. In contrast, females exhibited no change in the mean completion time for the assembly task but did show an increase in collision counts. Despite these negative performance findings when adding force feedback, users did report perceived increases in realism, helpfulness and utility towards the assembly task when force feedback was provided. Unlike force feedback, the results showed that auditory feedback, indicating that parts had collided during the assembly task, had no negative performance effects on the objective measures while still increasing perceived realism and overall user satisfaction. When auditory cues and force feedback were presented together, performance times, number of collisions, and usability were not improved compared to conditions containing just auditory cues or force feedback alone. Based on these results, and given the task and display devices used in the present study, the less costly option of excluding auditory and force feedback cues would produce the best performance when measured by the number of collisions and completion time. However, if increased ratings of usability for an assembly task are desired while maintaining objective performance levels and reduced cost, then the inclusion of auditory feedback cues is best.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Acosta E, Stephens B, Temkin B, Krummel TM, Gorman PJ, Griswold JA, Deeb SA (1999) Development of a haptic virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computer Based Medical Systems, New York, NY, June 2003

  2. Bach-y-Rita P (1972) Brain mechanisms in sensory substitution. Academic Press, New York

  3. Barfield W, Hendrix C, Bjorneseth O, Kaczmarek KA, Lotens W (1995) Comparison of human sensory capabilities with technical specifications of virtual environment equipment. Pres Tele Virt Env 4(4):329–356

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barfield W, Danas E (1995) Comments on olfactory displays for virtual environments. Pres Tele Virt Env 5(1):109–121

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boothroyd G (1992) Assembly automation and product design. Marcel Dekker, New York

  6. Brooks FP Jr, Ming-Ouh Y, Batter JJ, Kilpatrick JP (1990) Project GROPE. Haptic displays for scientific visualization. ACM, New York

  7. Casey MB, Nuttall RL, Pezaris E (1997) Mediators of gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores: a comparison of spatial skills with internalized beliefs and anxieties. Dev Psych 33:669–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Crawford HJ, Christensen L (1995) Developing research skills: a laboratory manual (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards GW (2000) Performance and usability of force feedback and auditory substitutions in a virtual environment manipulation task. Master’s Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

  10. Edwards G, Thompson J, MacGregor C (1998) Investigating the role of guided tours in virtual reality environments. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Association of Canada, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, October, 1998

  11. Ellis RE, Ismaeil OM, Lipsett MG (1996) Design and evaluation of a high-performance haptic interface. Robotica 14:321–327

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goertz RC, Thompson RC (1954) Electronically controlled manipulator. Nucleonics 46–47

  13. Gupta R, Whitney D, Zeltzer D (1997) Prototyping and design for assembly analysis using multimodal virtual environments. Comp Aid Des 29(8):585–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hampson E, Kimura D (1988) Reciprocal effects of hormonal fluctuations on human motor and perceptual skills. Behav Neuro 102:456–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hannaford B, Wood L (1989) Performance evaluation of a 6 axis high fidelity generalized force reflecting teleoperator. In: Proceedings of the NASA Conference on Space Telerobotics. Vol. II, NASA, Greenbelt, MD, January 1989

  16. Hendrix C, Barfield W (1995) Presence in virtual environments as a function of visual and auditory cues. In: Proceedings of the Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (VRAIS’95), Research Triangle Park, NC, 11–15 March 1995

  17. Howe R, Kontarinis D (1992) Task performance with a dextrous teleoperated hand system. In: Proceedings of SPIE 1833:199–207

  18. Ishi M, Sato M (1994) Force sensations in pick-and-place tasks. In: Proceedings of ASME WAM DSC 55(1):339–344

  19. Iwata H, Yano H, Hashimoto W (1997) LHX: an integrated software tool for haptic interface. Comp Graph 21:413–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kaczmarek KA, Bach-y-Rita P (1995) Tactile displays. In: Barfield W, Furness T (eds) Virtual environments and advanced interface design, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

  21. Kilshaw D, Annett M (1983) Right- and left-hand skill: I. Effects of age, sex, and hand preference showing superior skill in left-handers. Brit J Pych 74:253–268

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lawton CA (1994) Gender differences in way-finding strategies: relationship to spatial ability and spatial anxiety. Sex Roles 30(11/12):765–779

    Google Scholar 

  23. Linn MA, Peterson AC (1985) Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev 56:1479–1498

    Google Scholar 

  24. Massimino M, Sheridan T (1993) Sensory substitution for force feedback in teleoperation. Pres Tele Virt Env 2(4):344–352

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nash EB, Edwards GW, Thompson JA, Barfield W (2000) A review of presence and performance in virtual environments. Int J Hum Comp Interact 12(1):1–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Newcombe N, Bandura MM, Taylor DG (1983) Sex differences in spatial ability and spatial activities. Sex Roles 9:377–386

    Google Scholar 

  27. Peters M, Servos P, Day R (1998) Marked sex differences on a fine motor skill task disappear when finger size is used as covariate. J Appl Psych 75(1):87–90

    Google Scholar 

  28. Philips CW, Paterson CE, Pettijohn TF (1985) Feedback conditions and motor skills performance. J Gen Psych 112(1):53–57

    Google Scholar 

  29. Popescu VG, Burdea GC, Bouzit M, Hentz VR (2000) A virtual-reality-based telerehabilitation system with force feedback. IEEE Inf Technol Biomed 4(1):45–51

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Prinzel LJ III, Freeman FG (1995) Sex differences in visuospatial ability: task difficulty, speed-accuracy tradeoff, and other performance factors. Canad J Exper Psychol 49:530–539

    Google Scholar 

  31. Richard P, Birebent G, Coiffet P, Burdea G, Gomez D, Langrana N (1996) Effect of frame rate and force feedback on virtual object manipulation. Pres Tele Virt Envir 5:95–108

    Google Scholar 

  32. Richard P, Coiffet P (1995) Human perceptual issues in virtual environments: sensory substitution and information redundancy. IEEE Work Rob Hum Comm 301–306

    Google Scholar 

  33. Salisbury JK, Srinivasan MA (1997) Projects in VR: phantom-based haptic interaction with virtual objects. IEEE Comp Graph Appl Sept./Oct.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Satalich GA (1995) Navigation & wayfinding in virtual reality: finding proper tools and cues to enhance navigation awareness. Master’s thesis, University of Washington

  35. Stumpf H, Eliot J (1995) Gender-related differences in spatial ability and the k factor of general spatial ability in a population of academically talented students. Person Indiv Diff 19:33–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Vandenburg S, Kuse AR (1979) Spatial ability: a critical review of the sex-linked major gene hypothesis. In: Wittig M, Peterson AC (eds) Sex-related differences in cognitive functioning, Academic Press, New York

  37. Voyer D, Voyer S, Bryden MP (1995) Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychol Bull 117:250–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by an equipment grant from the Office of Naval Research (NOO0149710388) to Woodrow Barfield. Greg Edwards was supported by a postgraduate grant received from the Canadian National Science and Engineering Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 9505 Arboretum Blvd, Austin, TX 78727, USA

    Gregory W. Edwards

  2. 107 Cameron Glen, Chapel Hill, NC 27516, USA

    Woodrow Barfield

  3. Virginia Tech, 250 Durham Hall (0118), Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA

    Maury A. Nussbaum

Authors
  1. Gregory W. Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Woodrow Barfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maury A. Nussbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory W. Edwards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Edwards, G.W., Barfield, W. & Nussbaum, M.A. The use of force feedback and auditory cues for performance of an assembly task in an immersive virtual environment. Virtual Reality 7, 112–119 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0120-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0120-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation