Virtual reality learning software for individuals with intellectual disabilities: Comparison between...
If you can't read please download the document
Virtual reality learning software for individuals with intellectual disabilities: Comparison between touchscreen and mouse interactions E. LOUP-ESCANDE,
Virtual reality learning software for individuals with
intellectual disabilities: Comparison between touchscreen and mouse
interactions E. LOUP-ESCANDE, O. CHRISTMANN, R. DAMIANO, F.
HERNOUX, S. RICHIR ICDVRAT, 10-12 septembre 2012, Laval,
France
Slide 2
2 Context (1/2) Apticap Project Partners: Laval Agglomration,
ESAT Lancheneil, Enozone, CLARTE, Arts et Mtiers ParisTech
Duration: 14 months (from October 2010 to December 2011) Objective:
develop a VR software vocational guidance and learning disabled
workers in ESAT For vocational guidance and learning of disabled
workers in ESAT learn the dishwashing activity in a semi-autonomous
way Which enables individuals with mental disabilities to learn the
dishwashing activity in a semi-autonomous way replaces the common
techniques Which replaces the common techniques used in ESAT
ICDVRAT 2012 Laval
4 Aim of the experiment To compare two interaction techniques,
a mouse and a touchscreen, for performing a washing dishes task in
a virtual environment by individuals with intellectual
deficiencies. ICDVRAT 2012 Laval
Slide 5
5 Assumptions General hypothesis Tactile interface allows
better performances and is better accepted than the mouse by
individuals with mental disabilities when using a virtual
environment dedicated to learning ICDVRAT 2012 Laval Operational
hypotheses H1 Individuals with mental disabilities have better
performances with the touchscreen than with the mouse H2The
touchscreen is better accepted. It is perceived as easier to use
and more convenient by individuals with mental disabilities than
the mouse
Slide 6
6 Protocol (1/4) Participants 6 participants who suffer from a
congenital mental deficiency: 2 women and 4 men Average age: 26.3
(S.D. = 4.4 / Min = 21 / Max = 32) Average work experience: 5.1
(S.D. = 4.1 / Min = 1 / Max = 13) ICDVRAT 2012 Laval Material PC
with Apticap Software, optical mouse and 22'' touch screen Voice
recorder Identification guide Observation grid Post-experimentation
questions A basket and five plates.
Slide 7
7 Protocol (2/4) Procedure Before the experimentation:
identification interview During the experimentation: The
experimenter gives the instructions to the participant The
experimenter lets the participant familiarize himself with the
software and the task to perform, The participant performs the task
into the virtual environment After the experimentation: interview
on perception of each interaction mode and on the software. ICDVRAT
2012 Laval Validity The test was repeated twice for each
interaction mode The presentation order was counterbalanced
Slide 8
8 Protocol (3/4) Experimental conditions ICDVRAT 2012 Laval
Collected data Times for the two attempts with each interaction
mode and for the six participants Verbalizations Comments were the
54 answers to binary type questions Each participant gave 9 answers
on average; some participants were not able to answer all questions
Justifications and suggestions Room A Expriment Experimenter
Observer Disabled worker Room B Interviews Interviewer Educator
Disabled worker
Slide 9
9 Protocol (4/4) Analysis methods ICDVRAT 2012 Laval
Performances Traditional descriptive statistics (i.e. average,
deviation, minimum, maximum) Student T-Test Post-experimentation
interviews We counted the frequencies for each user interface
evoked for each question Confrontation of the performances and the
preferences of the participants to establish a qualitative
relation.
Slide 10
10 Results (1/3) Performances ICDVRAT 2012 Laval Participants
appeared to be were faster with the touchscreen than with the mouse
A more important speed gain with the touchscreen than with the
mouse between two attempts
Slide 11
11 Results (2/3) Preferences ICDVRAT 2012 Laval Touchscreen is
perceived as easier and more pleasant than the mouse 4 participants
prefer the touchscreen: It's easier than the mouse It is more
pleasant with the touchscreen but easier with the mouse It is
easier and more pleasant than the mouse 2 participants like both of
them
Slide 12
12 Results (3/3) Preferences ICDVRAT 2012 Laval An anticipation
of the future use of Apticap software: training himself using
tactile interaction Comments 5 participants out of 6 were able to
answer to questions 4/5 said they would choose the touchscreen for
a long-term use of Apticap software 5 think they can use the
software alone 2/4 prefer to learn with the virtual reality
software
Slide 13
13 Conclusion ICDVRAT 2012 Laval Initial assumptions
Individuals with mental disabilities have better performances with
the touchscreen than with the mouse Not confirmed neither
invalidated The touchscreen is better accepted. It is perceived as
easier to use and more convenient by individuals with mental
disabilities than the mouse Confirmed A lack of coherence between
the performances measures of the participants and their qualitative
judgments
Slide 14
14 Perspectives ICDVRAT 2012 Laval To include more participants
with intellectual disabilities in the experiments To widen the
profile of the participants by adding individuals with physical
disabilities and people with behavioral problems To conduct
experiments with the same experimental design, but applied to other
tasks of the dishwashing (e.g., receipting the dirty dishes,...) or
to other activities (e.g., room service, laundry).
Slide 15
15 Contact ICDVRAT 2012 Laval Olivier Christmann Assistant
Professor in Computer Science [email protected]