skip to main content
10.1145/3607822.3614545acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Assessing the Impact of Alert Modalities on User Performance and Comprehension in Controlled Workload Conditions

Published:13 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Virtual reality (VR) is a powerful tool for investigating user experience in interactive systems by simulating experiences that are challenging to obtain in real life. However, it is crucial to design VR tasks appropriately, especially when used for training first responders who face high cognitive workloads in extreme conditions. Poorly designed VR tasks can strain cognitive resources and hinder human performance and training transfer. Therefore, careful attention must be given to developing VR tasks that enhance cognitive processing in high-cognitive workload scenarios. This study aims to assess the impact of different types and intensities of alerts on reaction time and comprehension of notifications, and task performance in a VR environment designed to induce various levels of cognitive load. Two experiments were conducted, including a remote experiment, where participants had to complete a task in which they identified matching figures while reacting to and interpreting alerts delivered through auditory, visual, and haptic channels. Results showed that, while task performance was not affected by alert type or intensity, audio alerts were the slowest to react to, indicating higher cognitive processing in alerts of that modality.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

SUI-Video-Final.mp4

mp4

190.1 MB

References

  1. Jessica S Ancker, Alison Edwards, Sarah Nosal, Diane Hauser, Elizabeth Mauer, Rainu Kaushal, and With the HITEC Investigators. 2017. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC medical informatics and decision making 17 (2017), 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Carryl L. Baldwin and Bridget A. Lewis. 2014. Perceived urgency mapping across modalities within a driving context. Applied Ergonomics 45, 5 (2014), 1270–1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Katharina Barcatta, Elisabeth Holl, Layla Battistutta, Marian van der Meulen, and Katharina M Rischer. 2022. When less is more: Investigating factors influencing the distraction effect of virtual reality from pain. Frontiers in Pain Research 2 (2022), 800258.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Stanley J Bolanowski Jr, George A Gescheider, Ronald T Verrillo, and Christin M Checkosky. 1988. Four channels mediate the mechanical aspects of touch. The Journal of the Acoustical society of America 84, 5 (1988), 1680–1694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. John M. Carroll, Dennis C. Neale, Philip L. Isenhour, Mary Beth Rosson, and D. Scott McCrickard. 2003. Notification and awareness: Synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 58, 5 (2003), 605–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00024-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Alan H.S. Chan and Annie W.Y. Ng. 2012. Finger response times to visual, auditory and tactile modality stimuli. Lecture Notes in Engineering and Computer Science 2196 (2012), 1449–1454.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kuan-Wen Chen, Yung-Ju Chang, and Liwei Chan. 2022. Predicting opportune moments to deliver notifications in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kait Clark, Matthew S. Cain, and Stephen R. Mitroff. 2015. Perception and Human Information Processing in Visual Search. Cambridge University Press, 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511973017.016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. N. Demeter, D. Pud, and N. Josman. 2018. Cognitive Components Predict Virtual Reality-induced Analgesia: Repeated Measures In Healthy Subjects. Front. Robot. AI 4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00070Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Arindam Dey, Alex Chatourn, and Mark Billinghurst. 2019. Exploration of an EEG-based cognitively adaptive training system in virtual reality. 26th IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces, VR 2019 - Proceedings (2019), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8797840Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Ajoy S Fernandes and Steven K Feiner. 2016. Combating VR sickness through subtle dynamic field-of-view modification. In Proc. 3DUI. IEEE, 201–210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Jérémy Frey, Maxime Daniel, Julien Castet, Martin Hachet, and Fabien Lotte. 2016. Framework for electroencephalography-based evaluation of user experience. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2283–2294.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Sarthak Ghosh, Lauren Winston, Nishant Panchal, Philippe Kimura-Thollander, Jeff Hotnog, Douglas Cheong, Gabriel Reyes, and Gregory D. Abowd. 2018. NotifiVR: Exploring Interruptions and Notifications in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1447–1456. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2793698Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jerônimo G Grandi, Zekun Cao, Mark Ogren, and Regis Kopper. 2020. Simulating next-generation user interfaces for law enforcement traffic stops. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE, 826–827.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jerônimo G Grandi, Zekun Cao, Mark Ogren, and Regis Kopper. 2021. Design and Simulation of Next-Generation Augmented Reality User Interfaces in Virtual Reality. In 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. David Hecht and Miriam Reiner. 2009. Sensory dominance in combinations of audio, visual and haptic stimuli. Experimental Brain Research 193, 2 (2009), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1626-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Eric Horvitz. 2010. Notifications and awareness: A field study of alert usage and preferences. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW (2010), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718926Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Julia M Juliano, Nicolas Schweighofer, and Sook-Lei Liew. 2022. Increased cognitive load in immersive virtual reality during visuomotor adaptation is associated with decreased long-term retention and context transfer. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 19, 1 (2022), 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Alexandra D Kaplan, Jessica Cruit, Mica Endsley, Suzanne M Beers, Ben D Sawyer, and Peter A Hancock. 2021. The effects of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality as training enhancement methods: A meta-analysis. Human factors 63, 4 (2021), 706–726.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Benjamin Keinert, Matthias Innmann, Michael Sänger, and Marc Stamminger. 2015. Spherical Fibonacci Mapping. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 6, Article 193 (oct 2015), 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2816795.2818131Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Negar Khojasteh and Andrea Stevenson Won. 2021. Working together on diverse tasks: A longitudinal study on individual workload, presence and emotional recognition in collaborative virtual environments. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2021), 643331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Hyungil Kim, Xuefang Wu, Joseph L. Gabbard, and Nicholas F. Polys. 2013. Exploring head-up augmented reality interfaces for crash warning systems. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2013 (2013), 224–227. https://doi.org/10.1145/2516540.2516566Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Inge M Knudson and Jennifer R Melcher. 2016. Elevated acoustic startle responses in humans: relationship to reduced loudness discomfort level, but not self-report of hyperacusis. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 17, 3 (2016), 223–235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Stephanie J Lackey, JN Salcedo, James L Szalma, and Peter A Hancock. 2016. The stress and workload of virtual reality training: the effects of presence, immersion and flow. Ergonomics 59, 8 (2016), 1060–1072.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Luca Longo, Christopher D Wickens, Gabriella Hancock, and Peter A Hancock. 2022. Human Mental Workload: A Survey and a Novel Inclusive Definition. Frontiers in psychology 13 (2022), 883321.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Tiffany Luong, Ferran Argelaguet, Nicolas Martin, and Anatole Lécuyer. 2020. Introducing mental workload assessment for the design of virtual reality training scenarios. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 662–671.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Horia A Maior, Max L Wilson, and Sarah Sharples. 2018. Workload alerts—using physiological measures of mental workload to provide feedback during tasks. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 25, 2 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Denys J.C. Matthies, Laura Milena Daza Parra, and Bodo Urban. 2018. Scaling notifications beyond alerts: From subtly drawing attention up to forcing the user to take action. UIST 2018 Adjunct - Adjunct Publication of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (2018), 45–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/3266037.3266096Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. D. Scott McCrickard, Richard Catrambone, C. M. Chewar, and John T. Stasko. 2003. Establishing tradeoffs that leverage attention for utility: Empirically evaluating information display in notification systems. Vol. 58. 547–582 pages. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00022-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. D. Scott McCrickard, C. M. Chewar, Jacob P. Somervell, and All Ndiwalana. 2003. A model for notification systems evaluation-assessing user goals for multitasking activity. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 10, 4 (2003), 312–338. https://doi.org/10.1145/966930.966933Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. D. Scott McCrickard, Mary Czerwinski, and Lyn Bartram. 2003. Introduction: Design and evaluation of notification user interfaces. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 58, 5 (2003), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00025-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. N O T Measurement. 1999. Department of defense design criteria standard fuze design safety criteria for. July (1999), 25–28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Luis Mejia-Puig and Tilanka Chandrasekera. 2023. The Presentation of Self in Virtual Reality: A Cognitive Load Study. Journal of Interior Design 48, 1 (2023), 29–46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Mark R Mine. 1995. Virtual environment interaction techniques. UNC Chapel Hill CS Dept (1995).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Neville Moray. 2013. Mental workload: Its theory and measurement. Vol. 8. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Miyuki Morioka and Michael J. Griffin. 2008. Absolute thresholds for the perception of fore-and-aft, lateral, and vertical vibration at the hand, the seat, and the foot. Journal of Sound and Vibration 314, 1 (2008), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2007.12.036Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. S Pohja. 1996. Survey of studies on tactile sensing: R96: 02. Kista, Sweden, RWCP Neuro SICS Laboratory (1996), 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Unnikrishnan Radhakrishnan, Konstantinos Koumaditis, and Francesco Chinello. 2021. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality for industrial skills training. Behaviour & Information Technology 40, 12 (2021), 1310–1339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. A. K. Rao, S. Chandra, and V. Dutt. 2022. Learning From Feedback: Evaluation Of Dynamic Decision-making In Virtual Reality Under Various Repetitive Training Frameworks. Front. Psychol. 13 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872061Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Maximilian Rettinger, Christoph Schmaderer, and Gerhard Rigoll. 2022. Do you notice me? how bystanders affect the cognitive load in virtual reality. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 77–82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Sadia Rubab, Lingyun Yu, Junxiu Tang, and Yingcai Wu. 2023. Exploring Effective Relationships Between Visual-Audio Channels in Data Visualization. Journal of Visualization (2023), 1–20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Rufat Rzayev, Sven Mayer, Christian Krauter, and Niels Henze. 2019. Notification in VR: The effect of notification placement, task, and environment. CHI PLAY 2019 - Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (2019), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347190Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Bahador Saket, Chrisnawan Prasojo, Yongfeng Huang, and Shengdong Zhao. 2013. Designing an effective vibration-based notification interface for mobile phones. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 149–1504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Hans Jochen Scholl, Karyn Hubbell, and Jeffrey Leonard. 2019. Information sharing and situational awareness: insights from the Cascadia rising exercise of June 2016. In 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Grand Wailea, Maui, Hawaii, USA (January 8-11, 2019). 3035–3045.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Ben Shneiderman, Catherine Plaisant, Maxine S Cohen, Steven Jacobs, Niklas Elmqvist, and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2016. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Alexis D Souchet, Stéphanie Philippe, Domitile Lourdeaux, and Laure Leroy. 2022. Measuring visual fatigue and cognitive load via eye tracking while learning with virtual reality head-mounted displays: A review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 38, 9 (2022), 801–824.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Gabrielle Almeida De Souza, Laura Amaya Torres, Vinicius Stein Dani, David Steeven Villa, Abel Ticona Larico, Anderson MacIel, and Luciana Nedel. 2018. Evaluation of visual, auditory and vibro-tactile alerts in supervised interfaces. Proceedings - 2018 20th Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality, SVR 2018 (2018), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1109/SVR.2018.00033Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Anthony Steed, Ye Pan, Fiona Zisch, and William Steptoe. 2016. The impact of a self-avatar on cognitive load in immersive virtual reality. In 2016 IEEE virtual reality (VR). IEEE, 67–76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. C. Stothart, A. Mitchum, and C. Yehnert. 2015. The Attentional Cost Of Receiving a Cell Phone Notification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor 41 (2015), 893–897. Issue 4. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000100Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Ewald Strasser, Astrid Weiss, Roland Buchner, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2013. Alert in the Cleanroom: Testing Alerting Modalities for a Task Guiding Interface. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings 2013-April (2013), 661–666. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468473Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Zachary O. Toups and Andruid Kerne. 2007. Implicit Coordination in Firefighting Practice: Design Implications for Teaching Fire Emergency Responders. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 707–716. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240734Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Christoph Tremmel, Christian Herff, Tetsuya Sato, Krzysztof Rechowicz, Yusuke Yamani, and Dean J Krusienski. 2019. Estimating cognitive workload in an interactive virtual reality environment using EEG. Frontiers in human neuroscience 13 (2019), 401.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Remo MA van der Heiden, Christian P Janssen, Stella F Donker, and J Leon Kenemans. 2020. The influence of cognitive load on susceptibility to audio. Acta psychologica 205 (2020), 103058.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Nannan Xi, Juan Chen, Filipe Gama, Marc Riar, and Juho Hamari. 2023. The challenges of entering the metaverse: An experiment on the effect of extended reality on workload. Information Systems Frontiers 25, 2 (2023), 659–680.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. André Zenner, Marco Speicher, Sören Klingner, Donald Degraen, Florian Daiber, and Antonio Krüger. 2018. Immersive notification framework: Adaptive & plausible notifications in virtual reality. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings 2018-April (2018), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188505Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Assessing the Impact of Alert Modalities on User Performance and Comprehension in Controlled Workload Conditions

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SUI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
            October 2023
            505 pages
            ISBN:9798400702815
            DOI:10.1145/3607822

            Copyright © 2023 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 13 October 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate86of279submissions,31%

            Upcoming Conference

            SUI '24
            ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
            October 7 - 8, 2024
            Trier , Germany
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)62
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format