Workload and Performance Analyses with Haptic and Visually Guided Training in a Dynamic Motor Skill Task

  • Joel C. HuegelEmail author
  • Marcia K. O’Malley


This chapter presents the implementation of a progressive haptic guidance scheme for training in a dynamic motor skill acquisition task similar to some dynamic surgical tasks. The training is administered in a haptic and visual virtual environment. The results of the task training protocol concurrently compare the performance and workload of the proposed haptic guidance scheme to a similar visual guidance scheme and to virtual practice with no guidance. The human-user training protocol lasted 11 sessions over a 2-month period. The computerized version of the NASA task load index was administered to all participants during each session, thereby providing subjective workload data across the entire protocol. The analysis of the experimental results demonstrates that only early in the protocol, the progressive haptic guidance group outperforms all other groups. The workload analysis suggests that participants using the proposed haptic scheme have a significantly lower mental load and report less frustration than the others. These findings can be transferred to other virtual training environments used for surgical task training.


Haptics guidance Training Performance Workload Motor skill Skill acquisition Virtual environment Joystick Force feedback 



This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (IIS-0448341). The authors also acknowledge support received from the Tecnológico de Monterrey to complete the research reported in this chapter.


  1. 1.
    Abbott JJ, Okamura AM (2006) Stable forbidden-region virtual fixtures for bilateral telemanipulation. J Dyn Syst Meas Contr 128(1):53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein N (1967) The coordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emken J, Reinkensmeyer D (2005) Robot-enhanced motor learning: accelerating internal model formation during locomotion by transient dynamic amplification. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 13(1):33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griffiths P, Gillespie B (2004) Shared control between human and machine: using a haptic steering wheel and aid in land vehicle guidance. In: Proceedings of IEEE 12th international symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems (HAPTICS ’04), Chicago, March 2004, pp 358–366Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hancock PA (1996) Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload. Ergonomics 39(9):1146–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock P, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huegel JC, O’Malley MK (2010) Progressive haptic and visual guidance for training in a virtual dynamic task. In: Proceedings of IEEE symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environments and teleoperator systems, Waltham, pp 343–350Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huegel JC, Celik O, Israr A, O’Malley MK (2009) Expertise-based performance measures in a training virtual environment. Presence (Camb) 18(6):449–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalawsky RS, Bee ST, Nee SP (1999) Human factors evaluation techniques to aid understanding of virtual interfaces. BT Technol J 17(1):128–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kozak J, Hancock PA, Arthur E, Chrysler S (1993) Transfer of training from virtual reality. Ergonomics 36(7):774–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li Y, Patoglu V, O’Malley MK (2009) Negative efficacy of fixed gain error reducing shared control for training in virtual environments. ACM Trans Appl Percept 6(1):21Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Malley MK, Gupta A (2003) Passive and active assistance for human performance of a simulated underactuated dynamic task. In: Proceedings of IEEE 11th symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems (HAPTICS ’03), Los Angeles, March 2003, pp 348–355Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Malley MK, Gupta A, Gen M, Li Y (2006) Shared control in haptic systems for performance enhancement and training. J Dyn Syst Meas Contr 128:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenberg LB (1993) The use of virtual fixtures to enhance operator performance in time delayed teleoperation. J Dyn Syst Contr 49:29–36Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sallnäs E-L, Rassmus-Gröhn K, Sjöström C (2000) Supporting presence in collaborative environments by haptic force feedback. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7(4):461–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srimathveeravalli G, Thenkurussi K (2005) Motor skill training assistance using haptic attributes. In: Proceedings of IEEE first joint eurohaptics conference and symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, (WHC ’05), March 2005, pp 452–457Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tan H, Srinivasan M, Eberman B, Cheng B (1994) Human factors for the design of force-reflecting haptic interfaces. ASME Dyn Syst Contr 55(1):353–359Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Todorov E, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E (1997) Augmented feedback presented in a virtual environment accelerates learning of a difficult motor task. J Motor Behavior 29(2):147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhou M, Jones D, Schwaitzberg S, Cao C (2007) Role of haptic feedback and cognitive load in surgical skill acquisition. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting, Baltimore, October 2007, pp 631–635Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tecnologico de Monterrey-Campus GuadalajaraGuadalajaraMexico
  2. 2.Rice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations