training in virtual environments: transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 15 October 2014, At: 17:51Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
ErgonomicsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20
Training in virtualenvironments: transferto real world tasks andequivalence to real tasktrainingF. D. Rose , E. A. Attree , B. M. Brooks , D. M.Parslow & P. R. PennPublished online: 10 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: F. D. Rose , E. A. Attree , B. M. Brooks , D. M. Parslow& P. R. Penn (2000) Training in virtual environments: transfer to real worldtasks and equivalence to real task training, Ergonomics, 43:4, 494-511, DOI:10.1080/001401300184378
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/001401300184378
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
Training in virtual environments: transfer to real world tasks
and equivalence to real task training
F. D. ROSE*, E. A. ATTREE, B. M. BROOKS, D. M. PARSLOW , P. R. PENN
and N. AMBIHAIPAHAN
Department of Psychology, University of East London, Romford Road, LondonE15 4LZ, UK
Keywords: Virtual reality; Transfer; Training.
Virtual environments (VEs) are extensively used in training but there have been
few rigorous scienti® c investigations of whether and how skills learned in a VE aretransferred to the real world. This research aimed to measure and evaluate what is
transferring from training a simple sensorimotor task in a VE to real worldperformance. In experiment 1, real world performances after virtual training, real
training and no training were compared. Virtual and real training resulted in
equivalent levels of post-training performance, both of which signi® cantlyexceeded task performance without training. Experiments 2 and 3 investigatedwhether virtual and real trained real world performances diŒered in their
susceptibility to cognitive and motor interfering tasks (experiment 2) and in terms
of spare attentional capacity to respond to stimuli and instructions which werenot directly related to the task (experiment 3). The only signi® cant diŒerence
found was that real task performance after training in a VE was less aŒected byconcurrently performed interference tasks than was real task performance after
training on the real task. This ® nding is discussed in terms of the cognitive loadcharacteristics of virtual training. Virtual training therefore resulted in equivalent
or even better real world performance than real training in this simple sensori-motor task, but this ® nding may not apply to other training tasks. Future
research should be directed towards establishing a comprehensive knowledge ofwhat is being transferred to real world performance in other tasks currently being
trained in VEs and investigating the equivalence of virtual and real trainedperformances in these situations.
1. Introduction
Once described as a technology for which the `excitement to accomplishment ratio
remains high’ (Durlach and Mavor 1995), virtual reality (VR ) is now rapidly
outgrowing its computer games image and ® nding applications in a variety of
contexts and in ® elds as diverse as engineering, design, architecture, medicine and
education.
One area of application attracting an increasing amount of interest is training.
Virtual environments (VEs ) embody many of the characteristics of an ideal training
medium (Psotka 1995, Schroeder 1995, Rose 1996, Rizzo et al. 1998a, b ). VEs can be
a valuable training aid where training in real life situations would be impractical
because, for example, it would be dangerous, logistically di� cult, unduly expensive
or too di� cult to control. The use of VEs allows the trainer total control of both the
stimulus situation and the nature and pattern of feedback, and also allows
*Author for correspondence. e-mail: F.D.ROSE@ UEL.AC.UK
ERGONOMICS, 2000, VOL . 43, NO . 4, 494± 511
Ergonomics ISSN 0014-0139 print/ISSN 1366-5847 online Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/00140139.html
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
comprehensive monitoring of performance. Sometimes, by combining an educa-
tional simulation and a computer game format, the use of VEs may also engender
increased levels of motivation (Schroeder 1995 ).
VEs are already being developed for the training of pilots (Lintern et al. 1990a,
b ), drivers (Mahoney 1997 ), divers (FroÈ ehlich 1997 ), parachutists (Hue et al. 1997 ),
® re-® ghters (Bliss et al. 1997 ), console operators (Regian et al. 1992 ) and surgeons
and other medical staŒ (Satava 1995 ). They have also been used to train naval
o� cers in ship manoeuvres (Magee 1993, 1997 ), soldiers in battle ® eld simulations
(Goldberg 1994, Goldberg and Knerr 1997 ), and the Hubble Space Telescope
ground control team to familiarize themselves with the operability of the telescope’ s
component parts (Loftin and Kenny 1995, Loftin et al. 1997 ).
An especially active area of development in recent years has been in the use of
VEs for training within therapy and rehabilitation. Examples include the use of VEs
in desensitization training for patients with phobias (North et al. 1997, 1998,
Bullinger et al. 1998 ), in treating children with autism (Strickland 1997 ), in training
people with learning di� culties (Mowafy and Pollack 1995, Cromby et al. 1996,
Brown et al. 1998 ) or physical di� culties (Wilson et al. 1996, Stanton et al. 1998 ) and
for rehabilitation of patients with brain damage (Pugnetti et al. 1995, Rizzo and
Buckwalter 1997, Wann et al. 1997, Christiansen et al. 1998, Davies et al. 1998,
Pugnetti et al. 1998, Brooks et al. 1999a , b, Rose et al. 1999a, b ). In these instances,
an additional and vital advantage of using a VEs is that interaction with the
environment can be made contingent on the response repertoire of the patient.
Consequently, people whose motor disabilities restrict their active interaction with
real life environments can still interact with virtual training environments. Similarly
a VE can be structured to oŒset partial sensory loss in the user.
Generally it has been assumed that training in VEs will transfer to subsequent
real world performance. In those studies where the matter has been the subject of
empirical investigation the evidence seems to support that assumption. Certainly, in
the training of spatial skills positive transfer from virtual to real environments has
been reported almost without exception (Regian et al. 1992, Arthur et al. 1997,
Regian 1997, Waller et al. 1998, Brooks et al. 1999a, b ). In the case of procedural
learning, early studies suggested that transfer from virtual to real environments
might not occur. Kozak et al.’ s (1993 ) study is much quoted in this regard. However,
this ® nding has been questioned on methodological grounds (Durlach and M avor
1995, Psotka 1995) and disputed by follow up investigations (Kenyon and Afenya
1995 ), although this latter study used a projection based VR system rather than a
head-mounted display (HM D ). More recent studies (e.g. Regian 1997, Brooks et al.
1999a, b ) have found clear evidence of positive transfer of procedural learning from
virtual to real environments.
The general conclusion that training in a VE is bene® cial merits further scrutiny,
however. There have been relatively few studies in which transfer of training from
virtual to real environments has been rigorously examined and studies on which
conclusions of positive transfer have been based are very varied in terms of training
task requirements and the measures of transfer employed. Experience in a VE may
bene® t subsequent performance in a variety of diŒerent ways. For example, bene® t
could emanate simply from the VE aŒording the participant a general familiarity
with the associated real world situation. Alternatively, it could be due to the salience
of particular cues being increased, speci® c sequences of actions being rehearsed or, as
we have found, spatial memories being laid down procedurally. Even where a clear
495Training in virtual environments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
transfer of training occurs, it is probable that the overall bene® cial eŒect of training
in a VE will mask a mixture of more speci® c eŒects, some of which will facilitate
correct real world performance (positive transfer ) and some of which will hinder it
(negative transfer ). For example, training children to cross the road safely in a VE
may build up many valuable skills (looking, checking, timing, etc ). However, it is
di� cult to train road crossing in a VE without children also receiving the unwanted
message that errors in crossing roads, at least virtual ones, do not actually cause
injury.
If the use of VEs in training is to be properly evaluated it is important that
these complexities of transfer of training be addressed. Despite this being one of
the recommendations of the in¯ uential American National Research Council’ s
Committee on Virtual Reality Research and Development (Durlach and Mavor
1995 ), progress has been disappointingly slow. Many of the questions that need
to be addressed can be accommodated under the rubric of transfer of training
research, which has formed an important strand within mainstream experimental
psychology for many years (Fleishman 1987 ). Scienti® c interest in the extent of
transfer of training and the conditions which facilitate transfer from one situation
to another dates back to the doctrine of `formal discipline’ expounded in the
eighteenth century (Patrick 1992 ). Since that time, various theoretical interpreta-
tions of the transfer process have been proposed. For many years, explanations of
transfer based upon the notion of `shared elements’ (Thorndike and Woodworth
1901 ) were dominant. Later, more cognitive interpretations of transfer (Newall
1980 ) were proposed. In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on seeking
to combine the best of both viewpoints (e.g. Parente and Herrmann 1996 ).
Importantly, from our present point of view, a comprehensive methodology for
investigating transfer of training has been worked out against the background of
this theoretical debate.
The present authors believe that the development of VEs as an eŒective training
medium would be greatly facilitated by using this methodology to establish exactly
what it is that is being transferred from the virtual to the real environment. Clearly, it
is important to know exactly what is transferring and the extent of that transfer.
However, it is also important, when transfer of training from virtual to real appears
to have occurred, to investigate whether performance of the real world task after
training in a VE is equivalent to performance after a similar amount of training on
the real world task itself. It is this question which forms the point of the departure
for the studies described here.
The main focus of interest in this investigation is the equivalence of real world
performance derived from virtual and real training regimes. To highlight any eŒects
due to training in a VE per se, we intentionally selected an experimental training
situation, a simple steadiness tester, which allowed us to equate the sensory and
motor aspects of the virtual and real training situations as far as possible, i.e. to
maximize the ® delity of the virtual training situation (Durlach and Mavor 1995:
419 ).
Our hypothesis is that, even if virtual and real training at ® rst appear to produce
equivalent real world performances, these may well diŒer if scrutinized more closely.
Experiment 1 investigates whether there is evidence of transfer of training from
virtual to real versions of the steadiness tester task. Experiment 2 compares the real
task performances (produced by real and virtual training ) in terms of their
susceptibility to interference eŒects. Experiment 3 investigates whether there are
496 F. D. Rose et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
diŒerent attentional resources available during performance of the post-training trial
after real and virtual training.
2. Methods
This section contains an overview of the experimental task employed, associated
hardware and software, the performance measures employed and details of the
participants who volunteered to take part in these experiments.
2.1. Participants
Participants in these experiments were 250 university staŒand students (160 women,
90 men, mean age 30.1 years, SD 5.8 ). All were unpaid volunteers.
2.2. Experimental tasks
A diagram of the real-world version of the steadiness tester is shown in ® gure 1.
It consisted of a curved wire (450 mm long, 2 mm in diameter ) suspended
between two 140-mm-high vertical supports. Encircling the wire was an 80 mm
diameter metal ring attached to a 220 mm long metal rod. At the other end of
the rod was a handle that was shaped like the three-dimensional (3D ) mouse used
in the VE. A translucent Perspex screen was positioned behind the steadiness
tester. The participant was required to hold the handle in her/his non-preferred
hand and move the ring along the wire from one vertical support to the other
and back again trying to avoid the ring touching the wire. This constituted one
trial. If the metal ring touched the wire, the background screen lit up, signalling
to the participant that an error had been made. The contact was automatically
recorded as an error.
The virtual version of the task was created using dVISE, and was run via a
HP715 workstation, using dVS. The VE was displayed via an immersive 3D
stereo dVISORT M
HMD (resolution 2 ´ 345 ´ 259 pixels, horizontal ® eld of view
105 8 , vertical ® eld of view 41 8 ). Division Ltd (UK ) supplied the software and
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the steadiness tester.
497Training in virtual environments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
hardware. In the virtual version of the task, the participant viewed a computer
generated 3D simulation of the wire, its supports, and the metal ring, rod and
handle via an HMD. Participants moved the virtual ring along the virtual wire
using a 3D mouse. Errors (contacts between the virtual ring and virtual wire )
caused a change in the background illumination of this computer generated VE,
which corresponded with the illumination of the translucent screen in the real
version of the task.
2.3. General experimental design
The present investigation consisted of a sequence of three experiments. The ® rst was
concerned with measuring the extent of transfer of training from virtual to real
environments. The remaining experiments were intended to compare the character-
istics of real world performances based on training in virtual and real environments.
The research was carried out at the University of East London and with the approval
of the University’ s Ethics Committee.
2.4. Performance measures and data analyses
The measure of learning was de ® ned by the number of errors each participant made
on a post-training (test ) trial on the real steadiness tester. Data were analysed using
analysis of covariance (Dugard and Todman 1995, Dancey and Reidy 1999 ), or
t-tests as appropriate.
3. Experiment 1
The objective of experiment 1 was to examine the extent of transfer of training from
the virtual to the real steadiness tester tasks. Operationally this involved comparing
virtual training, real training and no training in terms of their eŒects on post-training
performance on the real task.
3.1. Participants
Participants were 210 university staŒand students (mean age 35.5 years, SD 5 ), 126
women and 84 men. All were unpaid volunteers recruited through poster
announcements.
3.2. Procedure
Participants were randomly allocated to three equal sized groups and tested
individually. The three groups were all tested on the real version of the steadiness
tester before and after training but diŒered in terms of the type of training given in
between. For group 1, training comprised eight trials on the real task. Each trial
consisted of using the non-preferred hand to move the ring along the curved wire
from left to right and back again. Participants were instructed to execute this action
as carefully as possible, trying not to allow the metal ring to touch the wire. Between
trials participants had rest periods of 1 min. For group 2, training comprised eight
trials on the virtual version of the task. Instructions and procedure were the same as
for group 1. Participants in group 3 (no training control condition ) spent 15 min
between pre- and post-training trials carrying out an unrelated task (navigating
through a VE viewed on a computer monitor ) so as to avoid them mentally
practising the task. This period was based upon pilot data which showed that 15 min
was the average time taken by participants to complete the eight training trials on the
virtual and real tasks.
498 F. D. Rose et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
3.3. Results
Observed means and SD for the pre- and post-training test conditions are shown in
table 1. The error scores for the post-training trial were adjusted to take baseline
performance into account by partialling out the pretraining trial error scores.
Adjusted mean error scores for the real training, virtual training and no training
groups are shown in ® gure 2:
Figure 2 indicates that participants in the no training group made more errors in
the post-training trial than participants in the real and virtual training groups.
Participants in the real and virtual training groups made a similar number of errors.
Figure 2. Adjusted group mean error scores (after baseline error scores were partialled out)
for real (RW ), virtual (VR ) and no training (NT) groups.
499Training in virtual environments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
A one-way, between-participants, analysis of covariance, using error scores on the
pretraining (baseline ) trial as the covariate, con® rmed this interpretation of the
results. There was a highly signi® cant diŒerence between the groups in terms of the
numbers of errors made on the post-training test trial (F[2,206] = 23.44, p= 0.001 ).
Planned comparisons showed that signi® cant diŒerences existed between the real
task training group and the no training group (p < 0.00001 ) and between the virtual
task training group and the no training group (p < 0.0000 1). There was no signi® cant
diŒerence between the real task and virtual task training groups (p= 0.22 ).
3.4. Discussion
The results of this ® rst experiment showed that training on both the real and the
virtual steadiness tester tasks was eŒective and resulted in signi® cantly better
performance than no training. More importantly, from the point of view of the
present investigation, the results demonstrated that training on the virtual task did
transfer to improved performance on the real task. Moreover, training on the virtual
task was as eŒective in facilitating real task performance as training on the real task
itself.
4. Experiment 2
One must not assume that the ® nding of equal transfer to the real task from virtual
and real training found in experiment 1 indicates exact equivalence between what is
learned in virtual and real task training. Despite this transfer, it is possible that the
performance based on virtual training is in some way less robust than that based on
training on the real task. That performance may, for example, be less durable or
require more cognitive capacity to execute. It may, of course, be superior to
performance based on real task training. The remaining two experiments in this
series are concerned with examining the equivalence of real task performances based
upon virtual and real training, particularly with regard to cognitive load
considerations.
If the post-training performances on the real steadiness tester of virtual and real
trained participants do diŒer in terms of their associated cognitive loads, one might
predict that they would be diŒerentially in¯ uenced by the introduction of concurrent
tasks. In this experiment the interfering eŒects of both a concurrent motor task
(tapping a Morse key ) and a concurrent cognitive task (identifying names of fruits
from recorded word strings ) were investigated.
Three of the main factors found to in¯ uence interference between concurrent
tasks are task similarity, practice and task di� culty (Eysenck and Keane 1995 ). W ith
regard to task similarity, W ickens (1984 ) concluded that the extent of interference
between two tasks is dependent on whether they share the same stimulus modality
Table 1. Observed mean errors (SD ) on the pre- and post-training steadiness tester trials.
RW VR NT
Pre-Post-
57.39 (26.76)
34.84 (22.70)55.44 (32.80)
36.36 (21.90)50.64 (25.93)
45.03 (22.31)
500 F. D. Rose et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
(visual or auditory ); whether they utilize the same processing stages (input, internal
processing and output ); and whether they rely on related memory codes (verbal or
visual ). In the present experiment, the motor task might be expected to impair
steadiness tester performance to a greater extent than the cognitive task as the motor
and steadiness tester tasks appear to have more processing stages in common.
The bene® cial eŒects of practice on concurrent task performance were found
when one of the tasks was well practised before the study (Allport et al. 1972, ShaŒer
1975 ) or when both tasks were practised together (Spelke et al. 1976 ). The most
commonly held view is that task performance becomes more automatic with practice
and therefore requires less attention (e.g. ShiŒrin and Schneider 1977). In the present
experiment, if real and virtual practice produce similar levels of automaticity in
subsequent steadiness tester performance, the interference tasks would not be
predicted to diŒerentiate between performances after either type of practice. But if
real and virtual practice result in diŒerent levels of automaticity in steadiness tester
performance, the interference tasks might negatively aŒect performance in the less
automatically performed steadiness tester task.
Research has shown that performance on concurrent tasks is impaired when the
di� culty of the tasks is increased (e.g. Sullivan 1976 ). However, a distinction made
by Norman and Bobrow (1975 ) between task performance that is resource-limited
and task performance that is data-limited may determine whether task di� culty
aŒects task performance. According to this view, performance that is resource-
limited is dependent on the available processing resources that can be devoted to the
task whereas performance that is data-limited is not aŒected by available processing
resources because external in¯ uences such as stimulus quality determine how well the
task is performed. This view assumes that there is a central capacity of limited
processing resources; that only resource-limited performance is susceptible to
interference; and that concurrent tasks interfere with each other if their combined
processing resources exceed the upper limit of available resources. In the present
experiment, performance of the steadiness tester task is likely to be resource-limited
as the task was not practised to such an extent that performances would become
data-limited.
The view that concurrent task performance relies on a central capacity of limited
processing resources that are deployed across a wide range of activities is not
universally accepted, of course. For example, the multiple-resource theory (Navon
and Gopher 1979) proposed that diŒerent processing mechanisms or modules handle
the requirements of diŒerent tasks. Others have attempted to synthesize the central
capacity and multiple-resource accounts of concurrent task performance (e.g.
Norman and Shallice 1980, Baddeley 1986 ).
Given this plethora of theoretical accounts one would suppose that it would be
di� cult to interpret the results of any study of concurrent task performance.
However, this concern is not so relevant to the present study. The important
consideration here is not simply to investigate whether motor or cognitive tasks
interfere with steadiness tester performance but to investigate whether steadiness
tester performances after real or virtual training show any diŒerential susceptibility
to these interfering tasks.
4.1. Participants
Participants were 120 university staŒand students (mean age 28.9 years, SD 5.2, 70
women and 50 men ). These participants had all taken part in experiment 1 and were
501Training in virtual environments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
randomly sub-sampled, in equal numbers, from the real task and virtual task
training groups from that experiment.
4.2. Procedure
Participants were randomly allocated, in equal numbers, to two subgroupsÐ a motor
interference subgroup and a cognitive interference subgroup. All participants were
required to carry out one additional steadiness tester trial following the post-training
trial in experiment 1. In addition to performing this trial, participants in the motor
interference subgroup were required to tap on a Morse code key with the middle
® nger of the preferred hand in time with a pre-recorded tempo of two beats per
second; participants in the cognitive interference subgroup were asked to listen for
the names of fruits interspersed within a string of pre-recorded words presented at 3-
s intervals and say `yes’ when they occurred. Both these concurrent tasks lasted for
the duration of the steadiness tester trial. Errors on the steadiness tester were
recorded as described before.
4.3. Results
Observed mean errors and SD on the post-training steadiness tester trial in
experiment 1 and during concurrent task performance are shown in table 2. Error
scores for the concurrent task steadiness tester trial were adjusted to take baseline
performance into account by partialling out the post-training trial error scores.
Adjusted mean error scores for the real and virtual training groups are shown in
® gure 3, which indicates that motor interference generally had a more detrimental
eŒect than cognitive interference on post-training performance on the real steadiness
tester. However, real task trained participants appear to be more impaired by motor
interference than virtual trained participants. A 2 ´ 2, between participants, analysis
of covariance, using the new baseline scores as the covariate, veri® ed that motor
interference had a signi® cantly greater eŒect on performance of the real steadiness
tester task than did cognitive interference [F(1,115 ) = 6.77, p = 0.01]. Participants
who had previously undergone virtual training were less impaired by the interference
tasks than those who had undergone real training [F(1,115 ) = 3.81, p = 0.05] but
there was no signi® cant interaction between previous training condition (virtual or
real ) and type of interference (motor or cognitive ) [F(1,115 ) = 0.45, p = 0.5].
4.4. Discussion
As expected, the motor task had a more disruptive eŒect than the cognitive task on
both real and virtual trained performance on the real steadiness tester. This result is
not surprising since the steadiness tester task has such a clear sensorimotor bias.
Table 2. Observed mean errors (SD ) on the real steadiness tester before and during the
concurrent task trial.
RW VR
Motor Cognitive Motor Cognitive
Pre- (post-training
trial experiment 1)
Post- (concurrent
task trial)
35.50 (19.48)
47.97 (28.13)
33.00 (20.00)
36.90 (21.10)
41.07 (16.73)
46.20 (17.87)
34.30 (16.96)
34.70 (21.37)
502 F. D. Rose et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
With a task involving a more substantial cognitive component, the situation may
prove to be diŒerent.
The counterintuitive result was the small but statistically signi® cant ® nding that
virtual task trained performance was less in¯ uenced by the introduction of
interfering tasks than real task trained performance. A possible explanation for
this ® nding is that virtual training is more e� cient than real training. If so,
subsequent steadiness tester performance might become more automatic after virtual
Figure 3. Adjusted group mean error scores (after baseline error scores were partialled out)
for real (RW ) and virtual (VR ) training groups when carrying out either a motor orcognitive concurrent task.
503Training in virtual environments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
training. A more automatically performed task requires less attention and is
therefore easier and less susceptible to disruption from interfering tasks.
5. Experiment 3
If virtual training results in more automatic performance on the real steadiness tester
task than real training, it follows that real task performance after virtual training
would require less attention than after real training. In the present experiment, this
possibility was investigated further by measuring real task and virtual task trained
participants’ attention to stimuli and instructions, which were not directly relevant to
real task performance, while they performed the real task. If real task performance
after virtual training does require less attention than real task performance after real
training, it is hypothesized that virtual trained participants will pay more attention to
irrelevant stimuli and instructions than real trained participants because they will
have more spare attentional resources available.
5.1. Participants
Participants were 40 university students (34 women, 6 men, mean age 24.7 years, SD
4.7 ). None of the participants had taken part in experiments 1 and 2, and none was
known to have gross colour vision problems or hearing impairments.
5.2. Additional experimental stimuli
5.2.1. Visual stimuli: Five colours (red, green, yellow, blue, purple ) were displayed
in a random order, at 2-s intervals, on a 14-inch SVGA computer monitor. The
colours were displayed as though they were part of a screen saver, each colour taking
up the whole screen. The monitor was situated ~ 60 cm to the left of the steadiness
tester, within participants’ peripheral vision (i.e. at the 45 8 point ).
5.2.2. Auditory stimuli: Three auditory tones were selected to represent the type of
sounds often heard emanating from computers, recorded onto an audiotape and
randomly presented at 2-s intervals (volume 56 dB ). The noises used were `wav’ ® les
taken from Superscape v5.6 (computer beep, low beep and dial tone ). The
audiocassette player was placed next to a PC, ~ 1.5 m behind the participant.
5.3. Procedure
Participants were randomly allocated to one of two equal sized groups, with the
proviso that there were equal numbers of left-handed participants in each group. As
in experiment 1, both groups were tested on the real steadiness tester task before and
after training but diŒered in terms of the type of training given in between, i.e. eight
trials of either real task training or virtual task training.
An event-based prospective memory task was also used in this experiment.
During the preliminary experimental instructions, participants were asked to
remember to sign a form and rate the e� cacy of the training procedure after they
had completed their training trials (real or virtual ) but before beginning their
post-training trial. Following the training trials, all participants had a 3-min
interval. This time gap was given ostensibly to allow them to rest but was
actually to provide them with the opportunity to remember the prospective
memory task.
504 F. D. Rose et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
Participants then underwent the post-training test trial. During this trial, the
visual and auditory stimuli described above were presented. The presentation of the
stimuli was started and stopped remotely.
Upon completion of the post-training trial, participants were given a recognition
memory test of the colours that had appeared on the PC screen while they had been
performing the trial. In the test the names of the ® ve target colours were interspersed
with ® ve distractersÐ pink, black, cream, grey, brownÐ and participants were
required to tick the colours which they could remember had appeared on the screen.
They were also asked to estimate the number of diŒerent tones (not the total number
of tones presented ) that they had heard while performing the trial.
5.4. Results
Observed mean errors and SD on the pre- and post-training steadiness tester trials
are shown in table 3. Using the pretraining baseline error scores as the covariate, the
adjusted group mean error performance scores on the post-training trial on the real
task showed no diŒerences between the real task and the virtual task trained
participants (35.6 and 38.7 respectively ). A one-way ANCOVA was statistically non-
signi® cant, [F(2,37 ) = 0.33, p = 0.57]. As expected, therefore, the data demon-
strated equivalent real task performance after real and virtual training.
For the prospective memory task the groups were also very similarÐ 20% of the
real task trained participants remembered to sign the sheet of paper compared with
15% of the virtual task trained participants. An additional 5% of the real task
trained participants and 30% of the virtual task trained participants remembered to
sign the sheet after the experiment was completed, which was not the actual task
required.
Colours incorrectly recognized were subtracted from target colours correctly
recognized (Baddeley 1997 ). The mean number of colours recognized in the real
training condition was 2.15 (SD 1.04 ), compared with 2.00 (1.21 ) in the virtual
training condition, indicating that the two groups recognized a similar number of
colours. An independent t-test veri ® ed that there was no signi® cant diŒerence
between the groups, [t(38 )= 0.42, p = 0.68].
The mean number of tones remembered in the real training condition was 2.40
(SD 0.9 ) compared with 2.00 (0.6 ) in the virtual training condition, which indicated
no apparent diŒerence between the two training groups. This was con® rmed by an
independent t-test which showed no signi® cant diŒerence between the two
conditions, [t(38 ) = 1.63, p = 0.11].
5.5. Discussion
The results of this experiment showed that participants in the two groups did not
appear to diŒer in terms of their ability to remember to perform the prospective
memory task after their training. Neither did they diŒer in their attention to
incidental stimuli during the post-training test trial. In suggesting that the virtual and
Table 3. Observed mean errors (SD ) on the real steadiness tester on the baseline and the
`attention’ trials
RW VR
Pre-
Post-
58.60 (24.71)
38.45 (24.30)50.10 (19.13)
35.75 (20.39)
505Training in virtual environments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
real trained groups did not diŒer in terms of their spare cognitive capacity during the
post-training test on the real steadiness tester, this result may appear to be at odds
with our proposed explanation of the result of the second experiment. This issue is
addressed below.
6. General discussion
This series of experiments compared post-training performance on a real
steadiness tester task after training on the real task and training on a virtual
version of the task. In experiment 1, virtual and real training resulted in
equivalent levels of post-training performance, both of which exceeded task
performance without training. The ® nding that a skill acquired in a VE transfers
to improved real task performance has been tacitly accepted for many years
although few studies have tested this assumption empirically and with an
appropriate degree of scienti® c control. The present ® nding provides ® rm
scienti® c evidence of transfer from training in a VE to real world performance.
The two remaining experiments investigated the equivalence of the real task
performances produced by virtual and real training methods. In experiment 2, a
concurrent motor interference task was expectedly found to impair the post-
training performance of both virtual and real world trained participants more
than a concurrent cognitive interference task. However, less expected was the
® nding that the interference tasks had a more detrimental eŒect on participants
who had been trained on the real task than on participants who had been trained
on the virtual task. In contrast, experiment 3 failed to ® nd any signi® cant
diŒerence between participants trained on the virtual task and those trained on
the real task on an incidental attention task performed during subsequent real
world task performance. Neither was there any apparent diŒerence between the
two groups of participants in a prospective memory task performed after training.
The results of these comparisons of real task performance after virtual and real
training, while generally supportive of those who seek to exploit VR’ s potential in
training (Seidel and Chatelier 1997 ), do raise some interesting questions both about
what transfers from virtual to real environments and the nature of the performances
which result from virtual and real training.
For example, the apparently equivalent levels of transfer to real world
performance from virtual and real training are of interest. Thorndike and
Woodworth (1901 ) proposed that transfer of training is dependent on the number
of sensory and motor characteristics that training and transfer tasks have in
common. Alternatively, Newall (1980; also Singley and Anderson 1987 ) proposed
that the similarity of cognitive processing demands between tasks is the determining
factor, whereas Parente and Anderson-Parente (1990 ) and Parente and DiCesare
(1991 ) proposed that training establishes associations between physical aspects of the
task and cognitive organizations learned during task performance resulting in a
learned cognitive response to the task. Notwithstanding that the steadiness tester
task was speci® cally chosen because it could be realistically represented in a VE, and
because the sensory and motor characteristics of the virtual and real versions of the
task could be equated as far as possible, all of these theoretical explanations would
predict that transfer from real task training to real task performance would be
greater than transfer from virtual task training to real task performance. That we
obtained such a high level of transfer from virtual to real merits further investigation,
therefore. Certainly it is important not to over-generalize from this ® nding. Transfer
506 F. D. Rose et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
from virtual training tasks that have much lower levels of ® delity in terms of their
real world equivalents would be likely to be signi® cantly lower.
A second point of interest is that real task performance after virtual training was
less aŒected by concurrently performed interference tasks than was real task
performance after real task training (experiment 2 ). According to Eysenck and
Keane (1995 ), the three main factors that in¯ uence concurrent task performance are
task similarity, practice and task di� culty. An interpretation of our ® ndings has
already been advanced, couched in terms of task di� culty, that virtual practice may
result in more automatic (i.e. less di� cult or less taxing) real world performance,
thus freeing up cognitive capacity to deal with interfering tasks. There is an
alternative interpretation of our ® ndings which still relates to the task di� culty
dimension. Since, with current VR technology, the sensory and motor characteristics
of real training inevitably diŒer from those in virtual training, it is likely that
cognitive processing in the two types of training would also diŒer. In the present
study, for example, we might hypothesize that the mismatch of visual feedback and
vestibular and proprioceptive feedback, which is characteristic of operating within
VEs, makes the virtual steadiness tester task more di� cult than its real world
counterpart. In other words, the virtual task may require greater cognitive capacity
than the real one. Virtually trained participants, in moving to the simpler real world
task, may therefore have surplus cognitive capacity to cope with the interference
task. Such an interpretation would be reminiscent of Helson’ s Adaptation Level
Theory (1964 ).
Although either of these hypotheses would explain the virtual trained
performance on the real world task being less in¯ uenced by interfering tasks in
experiment 2, they do not readily explain the lack of diŒerence between virtual and
real trained performances on the prospective memory and attentional tasks in
experiment 3. The contradiction between the results of the present second and third
experiments may be more imagined than real, however. Although virtual trained real
world performance may be less taxing than real world trained performance, it is
conceivable that both need a su� ciently high level of cognitive resources to prevent
attention being paid to stimuli or instructions which are not directly related to the
task. Such an interpretation would explain why group diŒerences were observed in
experiment 2 but not in experiment 3.
Our present data do not justify any certainty that cognitive load is a helpful
concept in terms of which to compare real world performances based on virtual and
real training. However, the matter should be relatively easily resolved by addressing
cognitive load issues directly by, for example, parametric variation of task di� culty
within the virtual and real training conditions, and within any concurrent tasks used.
This is the focus of our current research.
Certainly, this is a matter of importance. If performance based on virtual training
requires less cognitive load than that based on real training it has clear implications
for certain types of training. In particular, it would suggest VEs should be used
where possible in training people to carry out highly complex tasks in which errors
could be either dangerous or very expensive and in training people whose cognitive
capacity is already compromised, for example, by brain damage.
Despite these currently unresolved issues two important ® ndings have emerged
from the present research. First, there was clear transfer from VE task training to
real task performance in a rigorously controlled test. Second, there was considerable
evidence of equivalence of real world performance after VE and real task training.
507Training in virtual environments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
These two ® ndings provide strong empirical support for the further development of
VR as a training method. Finally, an important point to note is that in none of the
experiments did participants in the virtual training condition report any side eŒects
which have been the subject of continuing concern in applying this technology in
treatment and training (Rizzo et al. 1998a , b, Stanney et al. 1998 ).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Nu� eld Foundation.
ReferencesALLPO RT, D. A., ANTON IS, B. and REY NOLDS, P. 1972, On the division of attention: a disproof of
the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225 ±235.
ARTHU R, E. J., HANCOCK , P. A. and CHRYSLER, S. T. 1997, The perception of spatial layout inreal and virtual worlds, Ergonomics, 40, 69 ± 77.
BADDELEY , A. D. 1986, Working Memory (Oxford: Erlbaum).BADDELEY , A. D. 1997, Human Memory: Theory and Practice (Hove: Psychology Press).
BLISS, J. P., TIDWELL , P. D. and GUEST, M. A. 1997, The eŒectiveness of virtual reality foradministering spatial navigation training to ® re-® ghters, Presence: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments, 6, 73 ± 86.BRO OKS, B. M., ATTR EE, E. A., ROSE, F. D., CLIFFORD, B. R. and LEAD BETTER , A. G. 1999a, The
speci® city of memory enhancement during interaction with a virtual environment,Memory, 7, 65 ± 78.
BRO OKS, B. M., MCNEIL, J. E., ROSE, F. D., GREENW OOD , R. J., ATTR EE, E. A. and LEAD BETTER ,A. G. 1999b, Route learning in a case of amnesia: the e� cacy of training in a virtual
environment, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 9, 63 ± 76.
BRO WN , D. J., KERR, S. J. and BATO U, V. 1998, The development of the Virtual City: a usercentered approach, in P. Sharkey, D. Rose and J. I. LindstroÈ m (eds), Proceedings of the
Second European Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies,
ECDVRAT and the University of Reading, 11 ± 15.
BULLIN GER, A. H., ROESSLER , A. and MUELLER-SPAHN, F. 1998, Three-dimensional virtualreality as a tool in cognitive-behavioural therapy of claustrophobic patients,Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 1, 139 ± 146.
CHRISTIANSEN , C., ABREN , B., OTTENBA CH ER, K., HULLM AN, K., MASEL, B. and CULPEPPER, R.1998, Task performance in virtual environments used for cognitive rehabilitation after
traumatic brain injury, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 888 ± 892.
CROM BY, J. J., STAN DEN , P. and BRO WN , D. J. 1996, The potential of virtual environments in theeducation and training of people with learning disabilities, Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 40, 489 ± 501.
DANCEY, C. P. and REIDY, J. G. 1999, Statistics Without Maths for Psychology (London:
Prentice Hall).DAVIES, R. C., JOHANSSON, G., BOSCHIAN, K., LINDEN, A., M INOR, U. and SONESSO N, B. 1998, A
practical example of using virtual reality in the assessment of brain injury, in P. Sharkey,D. Rose and J. I. LindstroÈ m (eds), Proceedings of the Second European Conference on
Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies, ECDVRAT and the Universityof Reading, 61 ± 68.
DUGARD , P. and TODMAN , J. 1995, Analysis of pre-test and post-test control group designs ineducational research, Educational Psychology, 15, 181 ± 199.
DURLACH , N. I. and MAVO R, A. S. (eds) 1995, Virtual Reality. Scienti® c and Technical
Challenges (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
EYSENCK , M. W. and KEANE, M. T. 1995, Cognitive Psychology: A Student’ s Handbook, 2ndedn (Hove: Erlbaum).
FLEISHM AN, E. A. 1987, `Foreword’ , in S. M. Cormier and L. J. D. Hagman (eds ), Transfer of
Learning: Contemporary Research and Applications (London: Academic Press), 11 ± 17.
FROÈ EH LICH, T. 1997, Das Virtuelle Ozeanarium, Zeitschrift Thema Forschung (Darmstadt:Technische UniversitaÈ t Darmstadt), 50 ± 57.
508 F. D. Rose et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
GOLD BERG, S. 1994, Training dismounted soldiers in a distributed interactive virtual
environment, US Army Research Institute Newsletter, 14(April), 9 ± 12.GOLD BERG, S. L. and KNERR, B. W. 1997, Collective training in virtual environments: exploring
performance requirements for dismounted soldier simulation, in R. J. Siedel and P. R.Chatelier (eds ), Virtual Reality, Training’ s Future? (New York: Plenum ), 41 ± 51.
HELSO N, H. 1964, Adaptation Level Theory (New York: Harper & Row ).HUE, P., DELANN AY B. and BER LAN D, J.-C. 1997, Virtual reality training simulator for long time
¯ ight, in R. J. Seidel and P. R. Chantelier (eds ), Virtual Reality, Training’ s Future? (NewYork: Plenum), 69 ± 76.
KEN YON, R. V. and AFENYA, M. B. 1995, Training in virtual and real environments, Annals of
Biomedical Engineering, 23, 445 ± 455.
KOZAK , J. J., HANCO CK, P. A., ARTH UR , E. J. and CHRYSLER, S. T. 1993, Transfer of trainingfrom virtual reality, Ergonomics, 36, 777 ± 784.
LINTERN , G., ROSCOE, S. N., KOONCE, J. M. and SEGA L, L. D. 1990a, Display principles, controldynamics and environmental factors in pilot training and transfer, Human Factors, 32,
299 ± 317.LINTERN , G., ROSCO E, S. N., KOONCE, J. M. and SEG AL, L. D. 1990b, Transfer of landing skills
in beginning ¯ ight simulation, Human Factors, 32, 319 ± 327.LOFTIN, R. B. and KEN NEY, P. J. 1995, Training the Hubble space telescope ¯ ight team, IEEE
Computer Graphics and Applications, September, 31 ± 37.LOFTIN, R. B., SAVELY , R. T., BEN EDETTI, R., CULBERT , C., PUSCH , L., JONES, R., LUCAS, P.,
MURATORE , J., MENN INGER, M., ENGELBER G, M., KEN NEY, P., NGUYEN, L., SAITO, T. andVOSS, M. 1997, Virtual environment technology in training: results from the Hubble
Space Telescope Mission in 1993, in R. J. Seidel and P. R. Chantelier (eds ), Virtual
Reality, Training’ s Future? (New York: Plenum ), 93 ± 103.
MAGEE, L. E. 1997, Virtual reality simulator (VRS) for training ship handling skills, in R. J.Seidel and P. R. Chantelier (eds), Virtual Reality, Training’ s Future? (New York:
Plenum ), 19 ± 29.MAHONEY, D. P. 1997, Defensive driving, Computer Graphics World, 20, 71 ± 71.
MOWA FY, L. and POLLACK , J. 1995, Train to travel, Ability, 15, 18 ± 20.NAVON, D. and GOPHER, D. 1979, On the economy of the human processing system,
Psychological Review, 86, 214 ± 255.NEW ALL, K. M. 1980, Reasoning, problem solving and decision processes: the problem space
as a fundamental category, in R. Nickerson (ed.), Attention and Performance 8(Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum ).
NORMA N, D. A. and BOBRO W, D. G. 1975, On data-limited and resource-limited processes,
Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44 ± 64.NORMA N, D. A. and SHALLICE, T. 1986, Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of
behaviour, in R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz and D. Shapiro (eds), The Design of
Everyday Things (New York: Doubleday).
NORTH , M. M., NORTH, S. M. and COBLE, J. R. 1997, Virtual environments psychotherapy: acase study of fear of ¯ ying disorder, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,6, 127 ± 132.
NORTH , M. M., NORTH, S. M. and COBLE, J. R. 1998, Virtual reality therapy: an eŒective
therapy for phobias, in G. Riva, B. K. Wiederhold and E. Molinari (eds), Virtual
Environments in Clinical Psychology and Neuroscience (Amsterdam: IOS Press), 112 ±
119.PAREN TEÂ , R. and ANDERSON-PARENTEÂ , J. K. 1990, Vocational memory training, in J. Kreutzer
and P. Wehman (eds), Community Integration Following Traumatic Brain Injury(Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes), 157 ± 169.
PAREN TEÂ , R. and DICESAR E, A. 1991, Retraining memory: Theory, evaluation, andapplications, in J. Kreutzer and P. Wehman (eds), Cognitive Rehabilitation for Persons
with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Functional Approach (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes),147 ± 162.
PAREN TEÂ , R. and HERM ANN, D (eds) 1996, Transfer and Generalisation of Learning. Retraining
Cognition. Techniques and Applications (Gaithersburg: Aspen).
PATRICK, J. 1992, Training: Research and Practice (London: Academic Press).
509Training in virtual environments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
PSOTK A, J. 1993, Immersive training systems: virtual reality and education and training,
Instructional Science, 23, 405 ± 431.PSOTK A, J. 1995, Immersive training systems: virtual reality and education and training,
Instructional Science, 23, 405 ± 431.PUGNETTI, L., MEN DOZZI, L., BARBIERI, E., MOTTA , A., ALPINI, D., ATTREE, E. A., BROO KS, B. M.
and ROSE, F. D. 1998, Developments of a collaborative research on VR applications formental health, in P. Sharkey, D. Rose and J. I. LindstroÈ m (eds ), Proceedings of the
Second European Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies,ECDVRAT and the University of Reading, 77 ± 81.
PUGNETTI, L., MEN DOZZI, L., MOTTA , A., CATTANEO, A., BARBIERI, E. and BRANCO TTI, S. 1995,Evaluation and retraining of adults’ cognitive impairments: which role for virtual reality
technology? Computers in Biology and Medicine, 25, 213 ± 227.REGIAN, J. W. 1997, Virtual reality for training: evaluating transfer, in J. Kreutzer and P.
Wehman (eds ), Community Integration Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Functional
Approach (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes), 157 ± 169.
REGIAN, J. W., SHEBILSK E, W. L. and MONK, J. M. 1992, Virtual reality: an instructionalmedium for visual-spatial tasks, Journal of Communication, 42, 136 ± 149.
R IZZO, A. A. and BUCKW ALTER , J. G. 1997, Virtual reality and cognitive assessment andrehabilitation: the state of the art, in G. Riva (ed.), Virtual Reality in Neuro-Psycho-
Physiology: Cognitive, Clinical and Methodological Issues in Assessment and Rehabilita-
tion (Amsterdam: IOS Press ), 123 ± 146.
R IZZO, A. A., BUCKW ALTER , J. G., NEUM ANN, U., KESSELMAN, C. and THIEBAUX, M. 1998a, Basicissues in the application of virtual reality for the assessment and rehabilitation of
cognitive impairments and functional disabilities, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 1, 59 ±78.
R IZZO, A. A., W IEDERH OLD , M. D. and BUCK W ALTER , J. G. 1998b, Basic issues in the use ofvirtual environments for mental health applications, in G. Riva, B. K. Wiederhold and
E. Molinari (eds), Virtual Environments in Clinical Psychology and Neuroscience(Amsterdam: IOS Press), 21 ± 42.
ROSE, F. D. 1996, Virtual reality in rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury, in PMSharkey (ed.), Proceedings of the First European conference on Disability, Virtual
Reality and Associated Technologies, ECDVRAT and the University of Reading 5 ±12.
ROSE, F. D., BROOKS, B. M. and ATTR EE, E. A. 1999a, Virtual environments in memoryassessment and retraining, Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 5, 125.
ROSE, F. D., BROO KS, B. M., ATTREE , E. A., PARSLOW , D. M., LEAD BETTER , A. G., MCNEIL, J. E.,
JAYAW ARDENA, S., GREEN WO OD, R. and POTTER , J. A. 1999b, A preliminary investigationinto the use of virtual environments in memory retraining of stroke patients: Indicationsfor future strategy? Disability and Rehabilitation, 21, 548 ± 554.
SATAVA, R. M. 1995, Medical applications of virtual reality, Journal of Medical Systems, 19,
275 ± 280.SCHRO ED ER, R. 1995, Learning from virtual reality applications in education, Virtual Reality, 1,
33 ± 40.
SEIDEL, R. J. and CHATELIER , P. R. 1997, An overview of virtual reality/virtual environments
for education and training, in R. J. Seidel and P. R. Chantelier (eds), Virtual Reality,
Training’ s Future? (New York: Plenum ), 1 ± 6.
SHAFFER , L. H. 1975, Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks, in P. M. A. Rabbitt and S.Dornic (eds), Attention and Performance, vol. V (London: Academic Press).
SHIFFRIN R. M. and SCH NEIDER, W. 1977, Controlled and automatic human information
processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory,
Psychological Review, 84, 127 ± 190.SINGLEY, M. K. and ANDERSON , J. R. 1987, The Transfer of Cognitive Skills (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).SPELK E, E. S., H IRST, W. C. and NEISSER, U. 1976, Skills of divided attention, Cognition, 4,
215 ± 230.STANN EY, K. M., MOURANT, R. R. and KEN NEDY, R. S. 1998, Human factors issues in virtual
environments: a review of the literature, Presence, 7, 327 ± 351.
510 F. D. Rose et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4
STAN TON , D., W ILSON, P. and FOR EM AN, N. 1996, Using virtual environments to aid spatial
awareness in disabled children, in P. Sharkey (ed.), Proceedings of the First European
Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies, ECDVRAT and
the University of Reading, 75 ± 84.STRICKLAND , D. 1997, Virtual reality for the treatment of autism, in G. Riva (ed. ), Virtual
Reality in Neuro-Psycho-Physiology: Cognitive, Clinical and Methodological Issues in
Assessment and Rehabilitation (Netherlands: IOS Press), 81 ± 86.
SULLIVA N, L. 1976, Selective attention and secondary message analysis: a reconsideration ofBroadbent’ s ® lter model of selective attention, Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 28, 167 ± 178.THORNDIKE, E. L. and WOODWOR TH , R. S. 1901, The in¯ uence of improvement in one mental
function upon the e� ciency of other functions, Psychological Review, 8, 247 ± 261.WALLER , D. HUNT, E. and KNAPP, D. 1998, The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual
environment training, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 129 ± 143.WANN , J. P., RUSHTON, S. K. SM YTH , M. and JONES, D. 1997, Virtual environments in the
rehabilitation of disorders of attention and movement, in G Riva (ed.), Virtual Reality
in Neuro-Psycho-Physiology: Cognitive, Clinical and Methodological Issues in Assessment
and Rehabilitation (Amsterdam: IOS Press ), 157 ± 164.W ICKEN S, C. D. 1984, Processing resources in attention, in R. Parasuraman and D. R. Davies
(eds), Varieties of Attention (London: Academic Press ).W ILSON, P. N., FOREM AN , N. and TLAUK A, M. 1996, Transfer of spatial information from a
virtual to a real environment in physically disabled children, Disability and
Rehabilitation, 18, 633 ± 637.
511Training in virtual environments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 1
7:51
15
Oct
ober
201
4