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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boer LC (1991) Mental rotation in perspective problems. Acta Psychol (Amst) 76:1–9
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
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
Churchill EF, Snowdon DN, Munro AJ (eds) (2001) Collaborative virtual environments. Springer, London
Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. Perspect Soc Shar Cogn 13:127–149
Duran ND, Dale R, Kreuz RJ (2011) Listeners invest in an assumed other’s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition 121:22–40
Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37:32–64
Finlay CA, Motes MA, Kozhevnikov M (2007) Updating representations of learned scenes. Psychol Res 71:265–276
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
Garrod S, Pickering MJ (2009) Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Top Cogn Sci 1:292–304
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
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
Kimura D (2001) Cerveau d’homme, cerveau de femme?. Odile Jacob, Paris
Kolb B, Whishaw I (2002) Cerveau & comportement. De Boeck, Paris
Lawton CA (2001) Gender and regional differences in spatial referents used in direction giving. Sex Roles 44:321–337. doi:10.1023/A:1010981616842
Michelon P, Zacks JM (2006) Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Percept Psychophys 68:327–337
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
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
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
Roberts RJ, Aman CJ (1993) Developmental differences in giving directions: spatial frames of reference and mental rotation. Child Dev 64:1258–1270
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
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
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
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
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
Wang X, Tsai JJ-H (eds) (2011) Collaborative design in virtual environments. Springer, New York
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
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0294-8