Transfer of training—Virtual reality training with augmented multisensory cues improves user experience during training and task performance in the real world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) can create safe, cost-effective, and engaging learning environments. It is commonly assumed that improvements in simulation fidelity lead to better learning outcomes. Some aspects of real environments, for example vestibular or haptic cues, are difficult to recreate in VR, but VR offers a wealth of opportunities to provide additional sensory cues in arbitrary modalities that provide task relevant information. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these cues improve user experience and learning outcomes, and, specifically, whether learning using augmented sensory cues translates into performance improvements in real environments. Participants were randomly allocated into three matched groups: Group 1 (control) was asked to perform a real tyre change only. The remaining two groups were trained in VR before performance was evaluated on the same, real tyre change task. Group 2 was trained using a conventional VR system, while Group 3 was trained in VR with augmented, task relevant, multisensory cues. Objective performance, time to completion and error number, subjective ratings of presence, perceived workload, and discomfort were recorded. The results show that both VR training paradigms improved performance for the real task. Providing additional, task-relevant cues during VR training resulted in higher objective performance during the real task. We propose a novel method to quantify the relative performance gains between training paradigms that estimates the relative gain in terms of training time. Systematic differences in subjective ratings that show comparable workload ratings, higher presence ratings and lower discomfort ratings, mirroring objective performance measures, were also observed. These findings further support the use of augmented multisensory cues in VR environments as an efficient method to enhance performance, user experience and, critically, the transfer of training from virtual to real environment scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".