skip to main content
10.1145/3611659.3615702acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesvrstConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Revisiting Consumed Endurance: A NICE Way to Quantify Shoulder Fatigue in Virtual Reality

Published:09 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Virtual Reality (VR) is increasingly being adopted in fitness, gaming, and workplace productivity applications for its natural interaction with body movement. A widely accepted method for quantifying the physical fatigue caused by VR interactions is through metrics such as Consumed Endurance (CE). Proposed in 2014, CE calculates the shoulder torque to infer endurance time (ET)—i.e. the maximum amount of time a pose can be maintained—during mid-air interactions. This model remains widely cited but has not been closely examined beyond its initial evaluation, leaving untested assumptions about exertion from low-intensity interactions and its basis on torque. In this paper, we present two VR studies where we (1) collect a baseline dataset that replicates the foundation of CE and (2) extend the initial evaluation in a pointing task from a two-dimensional (2D) screen to a three-dimensional (3D) immersive environment. Our baseline dataset collected from a high-precision tracking system found that the CE model overestimates ET for low-exertion interactions. Further, our studies reveal that a biomechanical model based on only torque cannot account for additional exertion measured when the shoulder angle exceeds 90° elevation. Based on these findings, we propose a revised formulation of CE to highlight the need for a hybrid approach in future fatigue modelling.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. [n. d.]. Four apps to try if you’re new to VR fitness. Washington Post ([n. d.]). https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/11/11/vr-fitness-apps-to-try/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Maximilian Aurbach, Jan Spicka, Franz Süß, and Sebastian Dendorfer. 2020. Evaluation of musculoskeletal modelling parameters of the shoulder complex during humeral abduction above 90. Journal of biomechanics 106 (2020), 109817.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Myroslav Bachynskyi, Antti Oulasvirta, Gregorio Palmas, and Tino Weinkauf. 2014. Is motion capture-based biomechanical simulation valid for hci studies? study and implications. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3215–3224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Myroslav Bachynskyi, Gregorio Palmas, Antti Oulasvirta, and Tino Weinkauf. 2015. Informing the design of novel input methods with muscle coactivation clustering. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 21, 6 (2015), 1–25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kayne Barclay, Danny Wei, Christof Lutteroth, and Robert Sheehan. 2011. A quantitative quality model for gesture based user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. 31–39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Gunnar Borg. 1998. Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales.Human kinetics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Doug A. Bowman, Ryan P. McMahan, and Eric D. Ragan. 2012. Questioning Naturalism in 3D User Interfaces. Commun. ACM 55, 9 (sep 2012), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330667.2330687Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. F Buchthal and H Schmalbruch. 1980. Motor unit of mammalian muscle.Physiological reviews 60, 1 (1980), 90–142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gavin Buckingham. 2021. Hand tracking for immersive virtual reality: opportunities and challenges. Frontiers in Virtual Reality (2021), 140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jack Crosbie, Sharon L Kilbreath, Luise Hollmann, and Sarah York. 2008. Scapulohumeral rhythm and associated spinal motion. Clinical biomechanics 23, 2 (2008), 184–192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. João Marcelo Evangelista Belo, Anna Maria Feit, Tiare Feuchtner, and Kaj Grønbæk. 2021. XRgonomics: Facilitating the Creation of Ergonomic 3D Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 290, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445349Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sue A Ferguson, W Gary Allread, Peter Le, Joseph D Rose, and William S Marras. 2011. Shoulder muscle oxygenation during repetitive tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 55. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1039–1041.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Andris Freivalds. 2011. Biomechanics of the upper limbs: mechanics, modeling and musculoskeletal injuries. CRC press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Laura A Frey Law and Keith G Avin. 2010. Endurance time is joint-specific: a modelling and meta-analysis investigation. Ergonomics 53, 1 (2010), 109–129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A Garg, KT Hegmann, BJ Schwoerer, and JM Kapellusch. 2002. The effect of maximum voluntary contraction on endurance times for the shoulder girdle. International journal of industrial ergonomics 30, 2 (2002), 103–113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. M Hagberg. 1981. Muscular endurance and surface electromyogram in isometric and dynamic exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology 51, 1 (1981), 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimberley Hayes, Judie R Walton, Zoltan L Szomor, and George AC Murrell. 2002. Reliability of 3 methods for assessing shoulder strength. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow surgery 11, 1 (2002), 33–39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Juan David Hincapié-Ramos, Xiang Guo, and Pourang Irani. 2014. The Consumed Endurance Workbench: A Tool to Assess Arm Fatigue during Mid-Air Interactions. In Proceedings of the 2014 Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (DIS Companion ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598784.2602795Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Juan David Hincapié-Ramos, Xiang Guo, Paymahn Moghadasian, and Pourang Irani. 2014. Consumed Endurance: A Metric to Quantify Arm Fatigue of Mid-Air Interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1063–1072. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557130Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R Hugh Morton. 1996. A 3-parameter critical power model. Ergonomics 39, 4 (1996), 611–619.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Sujin Jang, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, Satyajit Ambike, and Karthik Ramani. 2017. Modeling cumulative arm fatigue in mid-air interaction based on perceived exertion and kinetics of arm motion. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3328–3339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Thomas Kosch, Jakob Karolus, Johannes Zagermann, Harald Reiterer, Albrecht Schmidt, and Paweł W. Woźniak. 2023. A Survey on Measuring Cognitive Workload in Human-Computer Interaction. Comput. Surveys (1 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3582272Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Zhe Liu, Daniel Vogel, and James R Wallace. 2018. Applying the cumulative fatigue model to interaction on large, multi-touch displays. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays. 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Svend Erik Mathiassen. 1999. Prediction of shoulder exerion endurance from personal factors. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. MATLAB. 2010. version 7.10.0 (R2010a). The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynn McAtamney and E Nigel Corlett. 1993. RULA: a survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Applied ergonomics 24, 2 (1993), 91–99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. COLEEN McCLURE and Damian Schofield. 2019. Running virtual: The effect of virtual reality on exercise. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. J Matt McCrary, Bronwen J Ackermann, and Mark Halaki. 2018. EMG amplitude, fatigue threshold, and time to task failure: A meta-analysis. Journal of science and medicine in sport 21, 7 (2018), 736–741.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Brian Merchant. 2021. The Metaverse Has Always Been a Dystopian Idea. https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7eqbb/the-metaverse-has-always-been-a-dystopiaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. H Monod and J Scherrer. 1965. The work capacity of a synergic muscular group. Ergonomics 8, 3 (1965), 329–338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Toshio Moritani, Akira Nagata, HERRFRT A DEVRIES, and MASUO MURO. 1981. Critical power as a measure of physical work capacity and anaerobic threshold. Ergonomics 24, 5 (1981), 339–350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Surena Namdari, Gautam Yagnik, D David Ebaugh, Sameer Nagda, Matthew L Ramsey, Gerald R Williams Jr, and Samir Mehta. 2012. Defining functional shoulder range of motion for activities of daily living. Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 21, 9 (2012), 1177–1183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Pierre Plantard, Edouard Auvinet, Anne-Sophie Le Pierres, and Franck Multon. 2015. Pose estimation with a kinect for ergonomic studies: Evaluation of the accuracy using a virtual mannequin. Sensors 15, 1 (2015), 1785–1803.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Walter Rohmert. 1960. Ermittlung von Erholungspausen für statische Arbeit des Menschen. Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Physiologie einschließlich Arbeitsphysiologie 18, 2 (1960), 123–164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. David Vidal-Tomás. 2022. The new crypto niche: NFTs, play-to-earn, and metaverse tokens. Finance Research Letters 47 (2022), 102742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.102742Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Ana Villanueva, Sujin Jang, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, Satyajit Ambike, and Karthik Ramani. 2023. Advanced modeling method for quantifying cumulative subjective fatigue in mid-air interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 169 (2023), 102931.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Jan Wöbbeking. 2022. Beat Saber generated more revenue in 2021 than the next five biggest apps combined. https://mixed-news.com/en/beat-saber-generated-more-revenue-in-2021-than-the-next-five-biggest-apps-combined/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J. Higgins. 2011. The Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial Analyses Using Only Anova Procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Haijun Xia, Michael Glueck, Michelle Annett, Michael Wang, and Daniel Wigdor. 2022. Iteratively Designing Gesture Vocabularies: A Survey and Analysis of Best Practices in the HCI Literature. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 29, 4 (2022), 1–54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Revisiting Consumed Endurance: A NICE Way to Quantify Shoulder Fatigue in Virtual Reality

    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
      VRST '23: Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology
      October 2023
      542 pages
      ISBN:9798400703287
      DOI:10.1145/3611659

      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: 9 October 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate66of254submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      VRST '24
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)170
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)19

      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