Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 199–208 | Cite as

Designing and evaluating a workstation in real and virtual environment: toward virtual reality based ergonomic design sessions

  • Charles Pontonnier
  • Georges Dumont
  • Asfhin Samani
  • Pascal Madeleine
  • Marwan Badawi
Original Paper


This paper adresses the issue of properly designing a digital mock-up (DMU) to be used in an experiment comparing simulated assembly tasks in both real and virtual environments. Motivations and specifications relative to the experiment are reported, and the design process of the DMU is described and illustrated. Recommendations are proposed with a particular focus on specificities relative to the use of a DMU as a support for both manufacturing and virtual reality—3D visualisation and interaction. A subjective evaluation of Real (RE), Virtual (VE), and Virtual with Force Feedback (VEF) environments is provided. Results indicate a real sensory and difficulty gap between RE and VEF, whereas a smaller difference was observed between RE and VE. In further improvements of scale-1 (where the objects in VE have the same size as in the real environment), co-localized simulation using haptic devices are warranted to fill in this gap. Results also highlight the impact of cognition and sensory feedback on user’s feeling and presence sensation. Applications of such numerical designs are presented in the last section, especially focusing on collaborative design sessions. Virtual Reality based evaluation of newly designed workstations will be a way in the future to improve design and user learning processes.


Fidelity Sensor-bridging Sensor-sharing Virtual reality Interaction 



We wish to thank Quentin Avril, Thierry Duval and Bruno Arnaldi, IRISA researchers for their kind support. We also wish to thank Jérome Quesné, Benjamin Lollivier and Mazyar Yosofi, undergraduate students, for their active participation. This work was supported by the European Project VISIONAIR [16] (VISIONAIR is under Grant agreement 262044) and the Danish Council for Independent Research | Technology and Production Sciences (FTP). Grant Number: 10092821.


  1. 1.
    Anderson J, Bothell D, Byrne M, Douglass S, Lebiere C, Qin Y (2004) An integrated theory of the mind. Psychol Rev 111(4): 1036Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Backstrand G, Hogberg D, Vin LJD, Case K, Piamonte P (2007) Ergonomics analysis in a virtual environment. Int J Manuf Res 2:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baranyi P, Csapo A (2010) Cognitive infocommunications: coginfocom. In: Computational intelligence and informatics (CINTI), 2010 11th international symposium on, IEEE, pp 141–146Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P (1989) Product design for assembly. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordegoni M, Cugini U, Belluco P, Aliverti M (2009) Evaluation of a haptic-based interaction system for virtual manual assembly. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on virtual and mixed reality, Springer, Berlin, pp 303–312Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brough JE, Schwartz M, Gupta SK, Anand DK, Kavetsky R, Pettersen R (2007) Towards the development of a virtual environment-based training system for mechanical assembly operations. Virtual Real 11:189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dai F, Felger W, Frühauf T, Göbel M, Reiners D, Zachmann G (1996) Virtual prototyping examples for automotive industries. In: Virtual reality worldGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Du J, Duffy V (2007) A methodology for assessing industrial workstations using optical motion capture integrated with digital human models. Occup Ergonomics 7:11–25Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duval T, Nguyen H, Fleury C, Chauffaut A, Dumont G, Gouranton V (2012) Embedding the features of the users’ physical environments to improve the feeling of presence in collaborative virtual environments. In: Cognitive infocommunications (CogInfoCom), 2012 IEEE 3rd international conference on, IEEE, pp 243–248Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    (2010) Eurofound: change over time—first findings from the fifth european working conditions survey. European foundation for the improvement of living and working conditionsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fleury C, Chauffaut A, Duval T, Gouranton V, Arnaldi B (2010) A generic model for embedding users’ physical workspaces into multi-scale collaborative virtual environments. In: “ICAT 2010 (20th international conference on artificial reality and telexistence)”Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gerathewohl SJ (1969) Fidelity of simulation and transfer of training: a review of the problem. In: Department of transportation, federal aviation administration, office of aviation medicineGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holt PO, Ritchie JM, Day PN, Simmons JEL, Robinson G, Russell GT, Ng FM (2004) Immersive virtual reality in cable and pipe routing:design metaphors and cognitive ergonomics. J Comput Inform Sci Eng 4(3):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jayaram U, Jayaram S, Shaikh I, Kim Y, Palmer C (2006) Introducing quantitative analysis methods into virtual environments for real-time and continuous ergonomic evaluations. Comput Ind 57(3):283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobe G (1995) Virtual interiors. Automot Ind 175(5):52–54Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kopecki A, Wössner U, Mavrikios D, Rentzos L, Weidig C, Roucoules L, Ntofon OD, Reed M, Dumont G, Bündgens D, Milecki A, Baranyi P, Noel F, Masclet C, Attene M, Giannini F, Spagnuolo M (2011) VISIONAIR: VISION advanced infrastructure for research. SBC J 3D Interact Syst 2(2):40–43Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larrodé X, Chanclou B, Aguerreche L, Arnaldi B (2008) Openmask: an open-source platform for virtual reality. In: Software engineering and architectures for realtime interactive systems (SEARIS)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCormik EJ (1987) Sanders. Human factors in engineering and design, M.S.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McMahan R, Bowman D, Zielinski D, Brady R (2012) Evaluating display fidelity and interaction fidelity in a virtual reality game. Vis Comput Graph IEEE Trans 18(4):626–633. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mine MR, Brooks Jr FP, Sequin CH (1997) Moving objects in space: exploiting proprioception in virtual-environment interaction. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., pp 19–26Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Müller M, Dorsey J, McMillan L, Jagnow R, Cutler B (2002) Stable real-time deformations. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics symposium on computer animation, ACM, pp 49–54Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nguyen TTH, Fleury C, Duval T (2012) Collaborative exploration in a multi-scale shared virtual environment. In: 3D user interfaces (3DUI), 2012 IEEE symposium on, IEEE, pp 181–182Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pappas M, Karabatsou V, Mavrikios D, Chryssolouris G (2007) Ergonomic evaluation of virtual assembly tasks. In: Digital enterprise technology, pp 511–518Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Picon F (2010) Interaction haptique pour la conception de formes en CAO immersive. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris XIGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pontonnier C, Dumont G (2009) Inverse dynamics method using optimisation techniques for the estimation of muscle forces involved in the elbow motion. Int J Interact Design Manuf (IJIDeM) 3:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pontonnier C, Dumont G (2009) Motion analysis of the arm based on functional anatomy. In: Springer (ed) 3D physiological human 2009. Lecture notes in computer sciences 5903Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pontonnier C, Dumont G (2010) From motion capture to muscle forces in the human elbow aimed at improving the ergonomics of workstations. Virtual Phys Prototyp 5:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pontonnier C, Samani A, Badawi M, Madeleine P, Dumont G (2013) Assessing the ability of a vr-based assembly task simulation to evaluate physical risk factors. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph (In press)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pontonnier C, de Zee M, Samani A, Dumont G, Madeleine P (2011) Meat cutting tasks analysis using 3D instrumented knife and motion capture. In: 15th Nordic-Baltic conference on biomedical engineering and medical physics, IFMBE Proceedings, vol. 34. pp 144–147Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pontonnier C, de Zee M, Samani A, Dumont G, Madeleine P (2012) Cutting force and emg recordings for ergonomics assessment of meat cutting tasks : influence of the workbench height and the cutting direction on muscle activation levels. In: ASME 2012 11th Biennial conference on engineering systems design and analysis (ESDA)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rebelo F, Noriega P, Duarte E, Soares M (2012) Using virtual reality to assess user experience. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergonomics Soc 54(6):964–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmitz B (1995) Great expectations-the future of virtual design. Comput Aided Eng 14(10):68Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seth A, Su HJ, Vance JM (2006) Sharp: a system for haptic assembly and realistic prototyping. In: ASME 2006 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in, engineering conferenceGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stoffregen T, Bardy BG, Smart L, Pagulayan R (2003) Virtual and adaptive environments: applications, implications, and human performance issues, chap. On the nature and evaluation of fidelity in virtual environments, pp 111–128Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Svendsen J, Samani A, Mayntzhusen K, Madeleine P (2011) Muscle synergies and force variability during precision and tracking tasks. Hum Mov Sci 30:1039–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tching L, Dumont G, Perret J (2010) Interactive simulation of cad models assemblies using virtual constraint guidance. Int J Interact Design Manuf (IJIDeM) 4(2):95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vo DM, Vance JM, Marasinghe MG (2009) Assessment of haptics-based interaction for assembly tasks in virtual reality. In: World haptics conference pp 494–499Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Volkov S, Vance JM (2001) Effectiveness of haptic sensation for the evaluation of virtual prototypes. ASME J Comput Inform Sci Eng 1(2):123–128 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wall S, Harwin W (2000) Quantification of the effects of haptic feedback during a motor skills task in a simulated environment. In: Proceedings of phantom user research symposium’00Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang Z, Dumont G (2011) Interactive two-stage rendering technique of deformable part through haptic interface. ASME Conf Proc 2011(44328):133–143Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Whitman LE, Jorgensen M, Hathiyari K, Malzahn D (2004) Virtual reality: its usefulness for ergonomic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 36th conference on winter simulation, winter simulation conference, pp 1740–1745Google Scholar

Copyright information

© OpenInterface Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Pontonnier
    • 1
  • Georges Dumont
    • 2
  • Asfhin Samani
    • 3
  • Pascal Madeleine
    • 3
  • Marwan Badawi
    • 4
  1. 1.Ecoles de Saint-Cyr CoëtquidanIRISA-INRIA RennesRennes CedexFrance
  2. 2.Ens Cachan Antenne de BretagneIRISA-INRIA RennesRennes CedexFrance
  3. 3.Department of Health Science and TechnologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  4. 4.IRISA-INRIA RennesRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations