Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of mental workload in haptic-enabled virtual assembly training operations

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of virtual reality (VR) technologies in the industry has considerably increased in the last years aiming to digitalize, simulate, and optimize processes. However, although the industrial integration of VR has several technical benefits, it may deviate from real-world demands, potentially outperforming human capabilities. In industrial VR research, there is still a lack of awareness of human aspects, and technical aspects are prioritized over user needs. Consequently, large research gaps about the effect of VR systems on the human factor need to be filled in order to know and enhance the user’s well-being and experience. Hence, this research aims to investigate the effect of operating a haptic-enabled VR system for industrial assembly training on the mental workload experienced by new users. A random sample of ninety participants was selected to carry out virtual assembly training. Three sets of training durations were selected and evaluated separately: 1, 2, and 3 h. The mental workload was assessed in each of these training durations. The results have demonstrated that the training duration has a small effect on the workload experienced by new users during their first virtual assembly training. In addition, although the workload levels are not very high, females and males experience different workload levels. The research findings fill some of the existing research gaps and can be useful in promoting the long-term mental well-being of workers when implementing VR technologies in the industry.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zizic MC, Mladineo M, Gjeldum N, Celent L (2022) From Industry 4.0 towards Industry 5.0: a review and analysis of paradigm shift for the people, organization and technology. Energies (Basel) 15:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15145221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. European Commission (2021) Industry 5.0 Towards a sustainable, human-centric and resilient European industry. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-publications-tools-and-data/publications/all-publications/industry-50-towards-sustainable-human-centric-and-resilient-european-industry_en. Accessed 29 May 2024

  3. Gallegos-Nieto E, Medellín-Castillo HI, González-Badillo G et al (2017) The analysis and evaluation of the influence of haptic-enabled virtual assembly training on real assembly performance. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 89:581–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9120-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cooper N, Millela F, Cant I et al (2021) Transfer of training—Virtual reality training with augmented multisensory cues improves user experience during training and task performance in the real world. PLoS ONE 16:22. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0248225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lawson G, Salanitri D, Waterfield B (2016) Future directions for the development of virtual reality within an automotive manufacturer. Appl Ergon 53:323–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Basalp E, Wolf P, Marchal-Crespo L (2021) Haptic training: Which types facilitate (re)Learning of which motor task and for whom? Answers by a review. IEEE Trans Haptics 14:722–739. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2021.3104518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ji YG, Lee K, Hwang W (2011) Haptic perceptions in the vehicle seat. Human Factors Ergon Manuf Service Indust 21:305–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/HFM.20235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Iwata H (2008) History of haptic interface. Human Haptic Perception: Basics and Applications 355–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-7612-3_29/COVER

  9. MassChallenge (2021) Haptic Technology: The Future of Engagement? https://masschallenge.org/article/haptic-technology. Accessed 16 Nov 2022

  10. Sagardia M, Hulin T (2018) Multimodal evaluation of the differences between real and virtual assemblies. IEEE Trans Haptics 11:107–118. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2017.2741488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boessenkool H, Abbink DA, Heemskerk CJM et al (2013) A task-specific analysis of the benefit of haptic shared control during telemanipulation. IEEE Trans Haptics 6:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2012.22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nardelli M, Greco A, Bianchi M et al (2020) Classifying affective haptic stimuli through gender-specific heart rate variability nonlinear analysis. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 11:459–469. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2018.2808261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stanney KM, Hale KS, Nahmens I, Kennedy RS (2003) What to expect from immersive virtual environment exposure: influences of gender, body mass index, and past experience. Hum Factors 45:504–520. https://doi.org/10.1518/HFES.45.3.504.27254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rodrigues TB, Ó Catháin C, O’Connor NE, Murray N (2020) A Quality of Experience assessment of haptic and augmented reality feedback modalities in a gait analysis system. PLoS One 15. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0230570

  15. Geitner C, Birrell S, Krehl C, Jennings P (2018) Haptic foot pedal: influence of shoe type, age, and gender on subjective pulse perception. Hum Factors 60:496–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818771906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chauvelin C, Sagi T, Coni P et al (2014) Haptics on a touch screen: characterization of perceptual thresholds. Int J Hum Comput Interact 30:872–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2014.941273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brayda L, Campus C, Memeo M, Lucagrossi L (2015) The importance of visual experience, gender, and emotion in the assessment of an assistive tactile mouse. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2015.2426692

  18. Chang E, Kim HT, Yoo B (2020) Virtual reality sickness: a review of causes and measurements. Int J Hum Comput Interact 36:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1778351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dennison MS, Wisti AZ, D’Zmura M (2016) Use of physiological signals to predict cybersickness. Displays 44:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DISPLA.2016.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu CL, Uang ST (2012) A study of sickness induced within a 3D virtual store and combated with fuzzy control in the elderly. Proceedings - 2012 9th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, FSKD 2012 334–338. https://doi.org/10.1109/FSKD.2012.6234149

  21. Yao R, Heath T, Davies A et al (2014) Oculus VR Best Practices Guide. https://brianschrank.com/vrgames/resources/OculusBestPractices.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2024

  22. Gallegos-Nieto E, Medellin-Castillo HI, Xiu-Tian Y, Corney J (2020) Haptic-enabled virtual planning and assessment of product assembly. Assem Autom 40:641–654. https://doi.org/10.1108/AA-10-2019-0169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Espinosa-Castañeda R, Medellín-Castillo HI (2021) Virtual Haptic Perception as an Educational Assistive Technology : A Case Study in Inclusive Education. IEEE Trans Haptics 14:152–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Park S, Kyung G, Choi D et al (2019) Effects of display curvature and task duration on proofreading performance, visual discomfort, visual fatigue, mental workload, and user satisfaction. Appl Ergon 78:26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.01.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Xia P, Lopes AM, Restivo MT (2013) A review of virtual reality and haptics for product assembly: From rigid parts to soft cables. Assem Autom 33:157–164. https://doi.org/10.1108/01445151311306672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jeffri NFS, Awang Rambli DR (2021) A review of augmented reality systems and their effects on mental workload and task performance. Heliyon 7:6277. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HELIYON.2021.E06277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. De Arquer I, Nogareda C (2010) NTP 544: Estimación de la carga mental de trabajo: el método NASA TLX. https://www.insst.es/documents/94886/327064/ntp_544.pdf/0da348cc-7006-4a8a-9cee-25ed6f59efdd. Accessed 29 May 2024

  28. Sun W, Huang M, Yang R et al (2020) Workload, presence and task performance of virtual object manipulation on WebVR. Proceedings - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality, AIVR 2020 358–361. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIVR50618.2020.00073

  29. Probster M, Marsden N (2021) Real gender barriers to virtual realities? 2021 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, ICE/ITMC 2021 - Proceedings 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC52061.2021.9570270

  30. Peck TC, Sockol LE, Hancock SM (2020) Mind the gap: the underrepresentation of female participants and authors in virtual reality research. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 26:1945–1954. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.2973498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim YM, Rhiu I, Yun MH (2020) A systematic review of a virtual reality system from the perspective of user experience. Int J Hum Comput Interact 36:893–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1699746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gonzalez-Badillo G, Medellin-Castillo H, Lim T et al (2014) The development of a physics and constraint-based haptic virtual assembly system. Assem Autom 34:41–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/AA-03-2013-023/FULL/PDF

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Crandall R, Karadoğan E (2021) Designing pedagogically effective haptic systems for learning: a review. Appl Sci 11:29. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP11146245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Heidari S, Babor TF, De Castro P et al (2016) Sex and gender equity in research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use. Res Integr Peer Rev 1:. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6

  35. Quintal F, Lima M (2022) HapWheel: in-car infotainment system feedback using haptic and hovering techniques. IEEE Trans Haptics 15:121–130. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2021.3095763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Truschzinski M, Betella A, Brunnett G, Verschure PFMJ (2018) Emotional and cognitive influences in air traffic controller tasks: an investigation using a virtual environment? Appl Ergon 69:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. National Institute of Statistic and Geography (2020) Estadística a propósito del día Mundial de la población (11 de Julio) Datos Nacionales. https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/aproposito/2020/Poblacion2020_Nal.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2021

  38. Charness G, Gneezy U, Kuhn MA (2012) Experimental methods: between-subject and within-subject design. J Econ Behav Organ 81:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tao D, Tan H, Wang H et al (2019) A systematic review of physiological measures of mental workload. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16:2716. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Noyes JM, Bruneau DPJ (2007) A self-analysis of the NASA-TLX workload measure. Ergonomics 50:514–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130701235232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kung CH, Hsieh TC, Smith S (2021) Usability study of multiple vibrotactile feedback stimuli in an entire virtual keyboard input. Appl Ergon 90:103270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Marucci M, Di Flumeri G, Borghini G et al (2021) The impact of multisensory integration and perceptual load in virtual reality settings on performance, workload and presence. Sci Rep 11:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84196-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Li WC, Zhang J, Court S et al (2022) The influence of augmented reality interaction design on Pilot’s perceived workload and situation awareness. Int J Ind Ergon 92:103382. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERGON.2022.103382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Das S, Maiti J, Krishna OB (2020) Assessing mental workload in virtual reality based EOT crane operations: a multi-measure approach. Int J Ind Ergon 80:. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.103017

  46. Rhiu I, Kim YM, Kim W, Yun MH (2020) The evaluation of user experience of a human walking and a driving simulation in the virtual reality. Int J Ind Ergon 79:. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.103002

  47. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2019) NASA TLX TASK LOAD INDEX. https://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/tlx/tlxpaperpencil.php. Accessed 24 Apr 2022

  48. Nino V, Claudio D, Monfort SM (2023) Evaluating the effect of perceived mental workload on work body postures. Int J Ind Ergon 93:103399. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERGON.2022.103399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rusnock CF, Borghetti BJ (2018) Workload profiles: a continuous measure of mental workload. Int J Ind Ergon 63:49–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2016.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Teigen KH (1994) Yerkes-Dodson: a law for all seasons. Theory Psychol 4:525–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354394044004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors would like to thank the financial support from the National Science and Technology Council (CONACYT) of Mexico, grant number CB-2010–01-154430. The first author also acknowledges CONACYT for providing a postdoctoral scholarship to develop this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Zona Universitaria, México. Av. Manuel Nava 8, 78290, San Luis Potosí, SLP, Mexico

    Sharon Macias-Velasquez & Hugo I. Medellin-Castillo

  2. Faculty of Sciences, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, México. Av. Parque Chapultepec 1570, Privadas del Pedregal, 78295, San Luis Potosí, México

    Abel Garcia-Barrientos

Authors
  1. Sharon Macias-Velasquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hugo I. Medellin-Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abel Garcia-Barrientos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, and preparation of the manuscript. The first draft of the manuscript was written by the first author, and all authors commented on the previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugo I. Medellin-Castillo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Macias-Velasquez, S., Medellin-Castillo, H.I. & Garcia-Barrientos, A. Evaluation of mental workload in haptic-enabled virtual assembly training operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-13691-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-13691-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation