Skip to main content
Log in

Remote collaboration in virtual reality: asymmetrical effects of task distribution on spatial processing and mental workload

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

Abstract

In the context of a remote collaboration task in virtual reality, this study aimed to analyze the effects of task distribution on the processing of spatial information and mental workload in spatial dialogs. Pairs of distant participants with specific roles (a guide and a manipulator) had to collaboratively move a virtual object in a plane factory mock-up. The displays allowed the participants to be immersed together in the virtual environment. We analyzed the dialogs that took place according to the frames of reference and the mental transformations required to produce the spatial statements. We also measured the associated mental workload. Results showed that when participants took a perspective, the manipulator’s point of view was preferred. Perspective-taking only yielded a moderate increase in mental rotations, which may explain a specifically high mental demand score for the guides’ NASA-TLX. Overall, this is in accordance with the least collaborative effort principle. This study reinforces the idea that, in collaboration, operators do not need the same aids as each other. Thus, it is not necessary to develop symmetrical tools, i.e., the same tools for all co-workers; instead, the needs of each operator should be taken into account, according to the task he has to perform. In our case, the guides would be helped with perspective-taking aids, while the manipulators would be helped with action-oriented tools.

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

Access this article

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boer LC (1991) Mental rotation in perspective problems. Acta Psychol (Amst) 76:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casanueva J, Blake E (2000) The effects of group collaboration on presence in a collaborative virtual environment. In: Mulder J, van Liere R (eds) Virtual environments 2000. Springer, Vienna, pp 85–94

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chellali AM, Dumas C, Milleville-Pennel I, Nouri E (2007) Common Frame of reference in collaborative virtual environments and their impact on presence. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual international workshop on presence, Starlab Barcelona, Barcelone, Spain, pp 371–372

  • Chellali A, Milleville-Pennel I, Dumas C (2012) Influence of contextual objects on spatial interactions and viewpoints sharing in virtual environments. Virtual Real 17:1–15. doi:10.1007/s10055-012-0214-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill EF, Snowdon DN, Munro AJ (eds) (2001) Collaborative virtual environments. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. Perspect Soc Shar Cogn 13:127–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran ND, Dale R, Kreuz RJ (2011) Listeners invest in an assumed other’s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition 121:22–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37:32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlay CA, Motes MA, Kozhevnikov M (2007) Updating representations of learned scenes. Psychol Res 71:265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foo P, Duchon A, Warren WH Jr, Tarr MJ (2007) Humans do not switch between path knowledge and landmarks when learning a new environment. Psychol Res 71:240–251. doi:10.1007/s00426-006-0080-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrod S, Pickering MJ (2009) Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Top Cogn Sci 1:292–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart SG (2006) NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Sage Publications, London, pp 904–908

  • Hintzman DL, O’Dell CS, Arndt DR (1981) Orientation in cognitive maps. Cogn Psychol 13:149–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc J-M (2001) Towards a cognitive approach to human–machine cooperation in dynamic situations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 54:509–540. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2000.0454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimura D (2001) Cerveau d’homme, cerveau de femme?. Odile Jacob, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb B, Whishaw I (2002) Cerveau & comportement. De Boeck, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton CA (2001) Gender and regional differences in spatial referents used in direction giving. Sex Roles 44:321–337. doi:10.1023/A:1010981616842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelon P, Zacks JM (2006) Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Percept Psychophys 68:327–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nygren TE (1991) Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload. Hum Factors 33:17–33. doi:10.1177/001872089103300102

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouliquen-Lardy L, Mars F, Guillaume F, Milleville-Pennel I (2015) Virtual collaboration: effect of spatial configuration on spatial statements production. Cogn Process 16:337–342. doi:10.1007/s10339-015-0672-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riecke BE, Cunningham DW, Bülthoff H (2007) Spatial updating in virtual reality: the sufficiency of visual information. Psychol Res 71:298–313. doi:10.1007/s00426-006-0085-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts RJ, Aman CJ (1993) Developmental differences in giving directions: spatial frames of reference and mental rotation. Child Dev 64:1258–1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roger M, Knutsen D, Bonnardel N, Le Bigot L (2013) Landmark frames of reference in interactive route description tasks. Appl Cogn Psychol 27:497–504. doi:10.1002/acp.2927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roskos-Ewoldsen B, McNamara TP, Shelton AL, Carr W (1998) Mental representations of large and small spatial layouts are orientation dependent. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 24:215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schober MF (1995) Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: whose effort is minimized in conversations about locations? Discourse Process 20:219–247. doi:10.1080/01638539509544939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten AP, van den Hooff B, Feldberg F (2013) Virtual team work: group decision making in 3D virtual environments. Commun Res. doi:10.1177/0093650213509667

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater M (2009) Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:3549–3557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Tsai JJ-H (eds) (2011) Collaborative design in virtual environments. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jérémy Le Thiec, Sidi Set, and Jean-Pierre Collet of the Airbus NemoLab who provided the virtual reality setup, as well as substantial technical assistance. This study is part of the PIVIPP project managed by IRT Jules Verne (French Institute in Research and Technology in Advanced Manufacturing Technologies for Composite, Metallic and Hybrid Structures). The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the industrial and academic partners of this project, respectively, Airbus Group, Airbus and IRCCyN.

Authors’ contributions

All authors participated in the design of the study. LPL conducted the experiment. LPL, IM, and FM analyzed the results and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franck Mars.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pouliquen-Lardy, L., Milleville-Pennel, I., Guillaume, F. et al. Remote collaboration in virtual reality: asymmetrical effects of task distribution on spatial processing and mental workload. Virtual Reality 20, 213–220 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0294-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0294-8

Keywords

Navigation