Mixed Reality Training of Military Tasks: Comparison of Two Approaches Through Reactions from Subject Matter Experts

  • Roberto ChampneyEmail author
  • Julie N. Salcedo
  • Stephanie J. Lackey
  • Stephen Serge
  • Michelle Sinagra
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9740)


This paper discusses a training-based comparison of two mixed reality military trainers utilizing simulation elements that are categorized on different areas of the virtuality continuum. The comparison encompassed exposing subject matter experts (SMEs) to the training systems. Independent groups of SMEs interacted with each system through conducting expert system evaluations. Independent groups of military officers experienced each system for call for fire/close air support training. Following these exposures, participants were queried on the constructs of simulator sickness, training utility, simulator fidelity, usability, and immersion. The results are contrasted and discussed. The outcomes of this comparison serve to promote discussion among the scientific community concerning the training tradeoffs affected by the virtuality continuum.


Augmented reality Training Learning Immersive training Virtual reality Wearable technology Mixed reality Training systems Augmented virtuality Simulation-based training Joint forward observer Call for fire Close air support Simulator fidelity 



This material is based upon work supported in part by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) under contract N00014-12-C-0216 and the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) under contract W911QX-13-C-0052. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or the endorsement of the ONR or ARL.


  1. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., Miller, J.: Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability 4(3), 114–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. Brooke, J.: SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  3. Champney, R.K., Stanney, K.M., Kennedy, R.S., Hash, P., Malone, L., Compton, D.: Recovery from virtual environment exposure: expected time-course of symptoms and potential readaptation strategies. Hum. Factors 3(49), 491–506 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C.: Augmented reality teaching and learning. In: Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Elen, J., Bishop, M.J. (eds.) The Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, 4th edn, pp. 735–745. Springer, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jennett, C., Cox, A.L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., Walton, A.: Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 66(9), 641–661 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson, L.,Google Scholar
  7. Kamarainen, A.M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D., Tutwiler, M.S., Dede, C.: EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Comput. Educ. 68, 545–556 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kennedy, R.S., Lane, N.E., Berbaum, K.S., Lilienthal, M.G.: Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3(3), 203–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E77-D(12), 1321–1329 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., Kishino, F.: Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In: SPIE 2351 Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, p. 282 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. Nelson, W.T., Roe, M.M., Bolia, R.S., Morley, R.M.: Assessing simulator sickness in a see-through HMD: Effects of time delay, time on task, and task complexity (ADA: 430344). Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (2000)Google Scholar
  12. Milham, L.M., Carroll, M.B., Jones, D.L., Dean, S.E., Chang, D.: Cue fidelity evaluation: a requirements-driven approach to training effectiveness evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL (2008a)Google Scholar
  13. Milham, L.M., Carroll, M.B., Stanney, K.M., Becker, W.: Training requirements analysis. In: Schmorrow, D., Cohn, J., Nicholson, D. (eds.) The Handbook of Virtual Environment Training: Understanding, Predicting and Implementing Effective Training Solutions for Accelerated and Experiential Learning. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot (2008b)Google Scholar
  14. Stanney, K.M., et al.: Aftereffects and sense of presence in virtual environments: Formulation of a research and development agenda. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 10(2), 135–187 (1998). Report sponsored by the Life Sciences Division at NASA HeadquartersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Stanney, K.M., Kennedy, R.S., Hale, K.S.: Virtual environment usage protocols. In: Hale, K.S., Stanney, K.M. (eds) Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation and Applications, pp. 797–810 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Army: FM 6-30: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Observed Fire. Department of the Army, Washington (1991a)Google Scholar
  17. U.S. Army: FM 6-30: Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Observed Fire, U.S. Army, Washington (1991b)Google Scholar
  18. Stensrund, B., Fragomeni, G., Garrity, P.: Autonomy requirements for virtual JFO training. Proceedings in Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference, Orlando (2013)Google Scholar
  19. U.S. Army: JCAS Memorandum of Agreement: Joint Fires Observer. U.S. Army, Washington (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Champney
    • 1
    Email author
  • Julie N. Salcedo
    • 1
  • Stephanie J. Lackey
    • 1
  • Stephen Serge
    • 2
  • Michelle Sinagra
    • 1
  1. 1.Design Interactive, Inc.OrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Simulation and TrainingUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations