Performance Evaluation of Augmented Reality for Directed Assembly

  • Arthur Tang
  • Charles Owen
  • Frank Biocca
  • Weimin Mou


Although there has been great speculation about the potential of augmented reality (AR) in manufacturing applications, there have been very few empirical studies that assess the effectiveness of the technology. This chapter describes an experiment that tested the relative effectiveness of AR instructions in computer-assisted assembly. The AR solution displayed task information in the user’s field of view (FOV) as 3D objects registered with the workspace. The presentation demonstrates the exact execution of a procedural step. Three traditional instructional media approaches were compared with the AR system: a printed manual, computer-assisted instruction (CAI) using a monitor-based display, and CAI utilizing a head-mounted display (HMD). Results indicate that overlaying 3D instructions on the actual work pieces reduced the error rate for an assembly task by 82%, particularly diminishing cumulative errors, errors due to previous assembly mistakes. Measurement of the mental effort indicated decreased mental effort in the AR condition, suggesting some of the mental calculation of the assembly task is offloaded to the system. The results indicate that an AR system for computer-assisted assembly can improve worker performance.


Augmented Reality Computer-assisted Instruction Human-computer Interaction Usability Study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Azuma R (1997) A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environment 6(4):355–385Google Scholar
  2. Bajura M, Fuchs H, Ohbuchi R (1992) Merging Virtual Reality with the Real World: Seeing Ultrasound Imagery within the Patient. IEEE Computer Graphics 26(2):203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barfield W, Caudell T (2001) Basic Concepts in Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality. In: Barfield W, Caudell T (Eds), Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Becklen R, Cervone D (1983) Selective Looking and the Notice of Unexpected Events. Memory & Cognition 11:601–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biocca F (2000) Human-bandwidth and the Design of Internet 2 Interfaces: Human Factors and Psychosocial Challenges. In: Proceedings of Internet2 Socialtechnical Summit, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 67–81Google Scholar
  6. Biocca F, Tang A, Lamas D (2001a) Evolution of the Mobile Infosphere: Iterative Design of a High-Information Bandwidth, Mobile Augmented Reality Interface. In: Proceedings of Euroimage 2001: International Conference on Augmented, Virtual Environments and 3D Imaging, Mykonos, Greece, pp 6–9Google Scholar
  7. Biocca F, Tang A, Lamas D, Gregg J, Brady R, Gai P (2001b) How Do Users Organize Virtual Tools Around Their Body in Immersive Virtual and Augmented Environment? In: An Exploratory Study of Egocentric Spatial Mapping of Virtual Tools in the Mobile Infosphere. Technical Report, Media Interface and Network Design Labs, Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Caudell TP, Mizell DW (1992) Augmented Reality: An Application of Heads-Up Display Technology to Manual Manufacturing Processes. In: International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, pp 659–669Google Scholar
  9. Dopping-Hepenstal LL (1981) Head-up Displays: The Integrity of Flight Information. IEE Proceedings Part F, Communication, Radar and Signal Processing 128(7):440–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feiner S, MacIntyre B, Seligmann D (1993) Knowledge-based Augmented Reality. Communications of the ACM 36(7):52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher E, Haines R, Price T (1980) Cognitive Issues in Head-Up Displays. Moffett Field, NASA Ames Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaulin S (1992) Evolution of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 3 5:125–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haines R, Fischer E, Price T (1980) Head-up Transition Behaviour of Pilots with and Without Head-up Display in Simulated Low-visibility Approaches. Moffett Field, NASA Ames Research CentreGoogle Scholar
  14. Hart SG (1987) Background Description and Application of the NASA Task Load Index (TLX). Department of Defense Human Engineering Technical Advisory Group Workshop on Workload, Newport, RIGoogle Scholar
  15. Inzuka Y, Osumi Y, Shinkai K (1991) Visibility of Head Up Display for Automobiles. In: Proceedings of 35th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, San Francisco, CA, pp 1574–1578Google Scholar
  16. Jebara T, Eyster C, Weaver J, Starner T, Pentland A (1997) Stochasticks: Augmenting the Billiards Experience with Probablistic Vision and Wearable Computers. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Cambridge, MA, pp 138–146Google Scholar
  17. Kirsh D (1995) The intelligent Use of Space. Artificial Intelligence 73(l):31–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klinker G, Stricker D, Reiners D (2001) Augmented Reality for Exterior Construction Applications. In: Barfield W, Caudell T (Eds), Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  19. Larish I, Wickens C (1991) Attention and HUDs: Flying in the Dark? In: Proceedings of Society for Information Display International Symposium Digest of Technical Papers XXII, pp 461–464Google Scholar
  20. McCann RS, Foyle DC, Johnston JC (1993a) Attentional Limitations with Head-up Displays. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH, pp 70–75Google Scholar
  21. McCann RS, Lynch JM, Foyle DC, Johnston JC (1993b) Modelling Attentional Effects with Head-up Display. In: Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, pp 1345–1349Google Scholar
  22. Neisser U, Becklen R (1975) Selective Looking: Attention to Visually Specified Events. Cognitive Psychology 7:480–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neumann U, Majoros A (1998) Cognitive, Performance, and Systems Issues for Augmented Reality Applications in Manufacturing and Maintenance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE VRAIS ’98, Atlanta, GA, pp 4–11Google Scholar
  24. Ohshima T, Satoh K, Yamamoto H, Tamura H (1998) AR2 Hockey System: A Collaborative Mixed Reality System. Transactions of the Virtual Reality Society of Japan 3(2):55–60Google Scholar
  25. Owen C (2001) The ImageTclAR Augmented Reality Development Environment. Google Scholar
  26. Sojourner R, Antin J (1990) The Effects of a Simulated Head-up Display Speedometer on Perceptual Task Performance. Human Factors 32(3):329–339Google Scholar
  27. Tuceryan M, Navab N (2000) Single Point Active Alignment Method (SPAAM) for Optical See-through HMD Calibration for AR. In: Proceedings of IEEE and ACM International Symposium for Augmented Reality, Munich, Germany, pp 149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Webster A, Feiner S, MacIntyre B, Massie W, Krueger T (1996) Augmented Reality in Architectural Construction, Inspection and Renovation. In: Proceedings of ASCE Third Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Anaheim, CA, pp 913–919Google Scholar
  29. Weintraub DR, Haines R, Randle R (1985) Head-up display (HUD) Utility II: Runway to HUD Transitions Monitoring Eye Focus and Decision Times. In: Proceedings of Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, pp 615–619Google Scholar
  30. Wynn TG, Tierson FD, Palmer CT (1996) Evolution of Sex Difference in Spatial Cogition. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 39:11–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yeh M, Wickens CD (2000) Attention and Trust Biases in the Design of Augmented Reality Displays. Aviation Research Lab, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Savoy, ILGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arthur Tang
    • 1
  • Charles Owen
    • 1
  • Frank Biocca
    • 1
  • Weimin Mou
    • 1
  1. 1.Media Interface and Network Design Laboratories, Media and Entertainment Technology LaboratoryMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations