Assembly Training: Comparing the Effects of Head-Mounted Displays and Face-to-Face Training

  • Stefan WerrlichEmail author
  • Carolin LorberEmail author
  • Phuc-Anh Nguyen
  • Carlos Emilio Franco Yanez
  • Gunther Notni
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10909)


Due to increasing complexity of assembly tasks at manual workplaces, intensive training of new employees is absolutely essential to ensure high process and product quality. Interactive assistive systems are becoming more and more important as they can support workers during manual procedural tasks. New assistive technologies such as Augmented Reality (AR) are introduced to the industrial domain, especially in the automotive industry. AR allows for enriching our real world with additional virtual information. We are observing a trend in using head-mounted displays (HMDs) in order to support new employees during assembly training tasks. This technology claims to improve the efficiency and quality of assembly and maintenance tasks but so far, HMDs have not been scientifically compared against face-to-face training. In this paper, we aim to close this gap in research by comparing HMD instructions to face-to-face training using a real-life engine assembly task. We executed a training-session with a total of 36 participants. Results showed that trainees who performed the assembly training with HMD support made 10% less picking mistakes, 5% less assembly mistakes and 60% caused less rework but they are significantly slower compared to face-to-face training. We further aimed to rate user satisfaction by using the system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire. Results indicated an average SUS of 73,5 which means ‘good’. These and further findings are presented in this paper.


Augmented Reality Evaluation Head-mounted displays Training 


  1. 1.
    Syberfeldt, A., Holm, M., Danielsson, O., Wang, L., Brewster, R.L.: Support systems on the industrial shop-floors of the future – operators’ perspective on augmented reality. In: Procedia CIRP, pp. 108–113 (2016).
  2. 2.
    Werrlich, S., Nitsche, K., Notni, G.: Demand analysis for an augmented reality based assembly training. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, pp. 416–422 (2017).
  3. 3.
    Loch, F., Quint, F., Brishtel, I.: Comparing video and augmented reality assistance in manual assembly. In: 2016 12th International Conference 2016, pp. 147–150 (2016).
  4. 4.
    Webel, S., Bockholt, U., Keil, J.: Design criteria for AR-based training of maintenance and assembly tasks. In: Shumaker, R. (ed.) VMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6773, pp. 123–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graupp, P., Wrona, R.J.: The TWI workbook: essential skills of supervisors (2016). ISBN 9781498703963Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holm, M., Adamson, G., Moore, P., Wang, L.: Why I want to be a future Swedish shop-floor operator. Procedia CIRP 41, 1101–1106 (2016). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rios, H., González, E., Rodriguez, C., Siller, H.R., Contero, M.: A mobile solution to enhance training and execution of troubleshooting techniques of the engine air bleed system on boeing 737. Procedia Comput. Sci. 25, 161–170 (2013). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hořejší, P.: Augmented reality system for virtual training of parts assembly. Procedia Eng. 100, 699–706 (2015). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gonzalez-Franco, M., Pizarro, R., Cermeron, J., Li, K., Thorn, J., Hutabarat, W., Tiwari, A., Bermell-Garcia, P.: Immersive mixed reality for manufacturing training. Front. Robot. AI 4, 3 (2017). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang, X., Ong, S.K., Nee, A.Y.C.: A comprehensive survey of augmented reality assembly research. Adv. Manufact. 4, 1–22 (2016). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Werrlich, S., Eichstetter, E., Nitsche, K., Notni, G.: An overview of evaluations using augmented reality for assembly training tasks. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Eng. 11(10), 1068–1074 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhamu, J., Singh Sangwan, K.: Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 34, 876–940 (2014). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwerdtfeger, B.: Pick-by-vision: bringing HMD-based augmented reality into the warehouse (2012). ISBN 978-3832526276Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Webel, S., Bockholt, U., Engelke, T., Gavish, N., Olbrich, M., Preusche, C.: An augmented reality training platform for assembly and maintenance skills. Robot. Auton. Syst. 61, 398–403 (2013). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ergonomics of human-system interaction - Part 110: dialogue principles (ISO 9241-110:2006). Deutsche Fassung EN ISO 9241-110:2006Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Regenbrecht, H., Baratoff, G., Wilke, W.: Augmented reality projects in the automotive and aerospace industries. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 25, 48–56 (2005). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Funk, M., Kosch, T., Kettner, R., Korn, O., Schmidt, A.: motionEAP: an overview of 4 years of combining industrial assembly with augmented reality for industry 4.0 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Inter. 24, 574–594 (2008). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BMW GroupMunichGermany
  2. 2.ITESMSan Luis PotosíMexico
  3. 3.Group for Quality Assurance and Industrial Image ProcessingTechnical University IlmenauIlmenauGermany

Personalised recommendations