skip to main content
10.1145/2971648.2971706acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesubicompConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Interactive worker assistance: comparing the effects of in-situ projection, head-mounted displays, tablet, and paper instructions

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 September 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

With increasing complexity of assembly tasks and an increasing number of product variants, instruction systems providing cognitive support at the workplace are becoming more important. Different instruction systems for the workplace provide instructions on phones, tablets, and head-mounted displays (HMDs). Recently, many systems using in-situ projection for providing assembly instructions at the workplace have been proposed and became commercially available. Although comprehensive studies comparing HMD and tablet-based systems have been presented, in-situ projection has not been scientifically compared against state-of-the-art approaches yet. In this paper, we aim to close this gap by comparing HMD instructions, tablet instructions, and baseline paper instructions to in-situ projected instructions using an abstract Lego Duplo assembly task. Our results show that assembling parts is significantly faster using in-situ projection and locating positions is significantly slower using HMDs. Further, participants make less errors and have less perceived cognitive load using in-situ instructions compared to HMD instructions.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. A Bannat, F Wallhoff, G Rigoll, F Friesdorf, H Bubb, S Stork, HJ Müller, A Schubö, M Wiesbeck, and MF Zäh. 2008. Towards optimal worker assistance: a framework for adaptive selection and presentation of assembly instructions. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on cognition for technical systems, Cotesys.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mark Billinghurst, Mika Hakkarainen, and Charles Woodward. 2008. Augmented assembly using a mobile phone. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. ACM, 84--87. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1543137.1543153 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Sebastian Büttner, Oliver Sand, and Carsten Röcker. 2015. Extending the Design Space in Industrial Manufacturing Through Mobile Projection. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct. ACM, 1130--1133. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2786567.2794342 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Thomas P Caudell and David W Mizell. 1992. Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. In System Sciences, 1992. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on, Vol. 2. IEEE, 659--669. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1992.183317Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Florian Echtler, Fabian Sturm, Kay Kindermann, Gudrun Klinker, Joachim Stilla, Joern Trilk, and Hesam Najafi. 2004. The intelligent welding gun: Augmented reality for experimental vehicle construction. In Virtual and augmented reality applications in manufacturing. Springer, 333--360. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3873-0_17Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Markus Funk, Thomas Kosch, Scott W Greenwald, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2015a. A benchmark for interactive augmented reality instructions for assembly tasks. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. ACM, 253--257. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2836041.2836067 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Markus Funk, Sven Mayer, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2015b. Using In-Situ Projection to Support Cognitively Impaired Workers at the Workplace. In Proceedings of the 17th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers & accessibility. ACM. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2700648.2809853 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Markus Funk, Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Sven Mayer, Lars Lischke, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2015c. Pick from here!: an interactive mobile cart using in-situ projection for order picking. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, 601--609. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804268 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Nirit Gavish, Teresa Gutiérrez, Sabine Webel, Jorge Rodríguez, Matteo Peveri, Uli Bockholt, and Franco Tecchia. 2013. Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interactive Learning Environments ahead-of-print (2013), 1--21. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.815221Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ankit Gupta, Dieter Fox, Brian Curless, and Michael Cohen. 2012. DuploTrack: a real-time system for authoring and guiding duplo block assembly. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, 389--402. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2380116.2380167 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Sandra G Hart. 2006. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 50. Sage Publications, 904--908. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Steven J Henderson and Steven Feiner. 2009. Evaluating the benefits of augmented reality for task localization in maintenance of an armored personnel carrier turret. In Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2009. ISMAR 2009. 8th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 135--144. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2009.5336486 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Steven J Henderson and Steven K Feiner. 2011. Augmented reality in the psychomotor phase of a procedural task. In Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 191--200. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2011.6092386 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Oliver Korn, Albrecht Schmidt, and Thomas Hörz. 2013. The potentials of in-situ-projection for augmented workplaces in production: a study with impaired persons. In CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 979--984. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468531 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael R Marner, Andrew Irlitti, and Bruce H Thomas. 2013. Improving procedural task performance with Augmented Reality annotations. In Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2013 IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 39--48. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2013.6671762Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. GI McCalla, JE Greer, VS Kumar, P Meagher, JA Collins, R Tkatch, and B Parkinson. 1997. A peer help system for workplace training. B. d. Boulay, & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), AI-ED 97, 8 (1997), 183--190.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Nobuchika Sakata, Takeshi Kurata, Takekazu Kato, Masakatsu Kourogi, and Hideaki Kuzuoka. 2003. WACL: Supporting Telecommunications Using Wearable Active Camera with Laser Pointer. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC '03). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 53--. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=946249.946870 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Nobuchika Sakata, Takeshi Kurata, and Hideaki Kuzuoka. 2006. Visual assist with a laser pointer and wearable display for remote collaboration. (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Björn Schwerdtfeger, Rupert Reif, Willibald Günthner, Gudrun Klinker, Daniel Hamacher, Lutz Schega, Irina Böckelmann, Fabian Doil, Johannes Tümler, and others. 2009. Pick-by-Vision: A first stress test. In Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2009. ISMAR 2009. 8th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 115--124. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2009.5336484 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Arthur Tang, Charles Owen, Frank Biocca, and Weimin Mou. 2003. Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 73--80. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/642611.642626 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Xianjun Sam Zheng, Cedric Foucault, Patrik Matos da Silva, Siddharth Dasari, Tao Yang, and Stuart Goose. 2015. Eye-wearable technology for machine maintenance: Effects of display position and hands-free operation. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2125--2134. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702305 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Interactive worker assistance: comparing the effects of in-situ projection, head-mounted displays, tablet, and paper instructions

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      UbiComp '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
      September 2016
      1288 pages
      ISBN:9781450344616
      DOI:10.1145/2971648

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 September 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      UbiComp '16 Paper Acceptance Rate101of389submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate764of2,912submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader