Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Patrick Carlson

dblp:41/11181 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
0000-0001-9580-5749ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Haptics and multimodal interaction · 38% Immersive interaction · 32% Learning and educational technologies · 30%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Haptics and multimodal interaction › haptics
haptic training
0.212015
Virtual Training: Learning Transfer of Assembly Tasks · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2015
Immersive interaction
virtual reality training
0.212015
Virtual Training: Learning Transfer of Assembly Tasks · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2015
Learning and educational technologies › simulation-based training
virtual training
0.112012
Puzzle assembly training: Real world vs. virtual environment · VR 2012
Learning and educational technologies › skill training
training transfer
0.112015
Virtual Training: Learning Transfer of Assembly Tasks · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2015
Haptics and multimodal interaction
haptic interface
0.012012
Puzzle assembly training: Real world vs. virtual environment · VR 2012

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

mixed experimental design · 0.2mental rotation test · 0.2comparative user study · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Virtual Training: Learning Transfer of Assembly Tasks
abstract
In training assembly workers in a factory, there are often barriers such as cost and lost productivity due to shutdown. The use of virtual reality (VR) training has the potential to reduce these costs. This research compares virtual bimanual haptic training versus traditional physical training and the effectiveness for learning transfer. In a mixed experimental design, participants were assigned to either virtual or physical training and trained by assembling a wooden burr puzzle as many times as possible during a twenty minute time period. After training, participants were tested using the physical puzzle and were retested again after two weeks. All participants were trained using brightly colored puzzle pieces. To examine the effect of color, testing involved the assembly of colored physical parts and natural wood colored physical pieces. Spatial ability as measured using a mental rotation test, was shown to correlate with the number of assemblies they were able to complete in the training. While physical training outperformed virtual training, after two weeks the virtually trained participants actually improved their test assembly times. The results suggest that the color of the puzzle pieces helped the virtually trained participants in remembering the assembly process.
Patrick Carlson, Anicia N. Peters, Stephen B. Gilbert, Judy M. Vance, Andy Luse
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.1
2012 Puzzle assembly training: Real world vs. virtual environment
abstract
While training participants to assemble a 3D wooden burr puzzle, we compared results of training in a stereoscopic, head tracked virtual assembly environment utilizing haptic devices and data gloves with real world training. While virtual training took participants about three times longer, the group that used the virtual environment was able to assemble the physical test puzzle about three times faster than the group trained with the physical puzzle. We present several possible cognitive explanations for these results and our plans for future exploration of the factors that improve the effectiveness of virtual process training over real world experience.
Mike Oren, Patrick Carlson, Stephen B. Gilbert, Judy M. Vance
VR2