SenseGlove
The Role of Force and Vibrotactile Feedback in Learning and Retaining Procedural and Factual Knowledge
In Brief
TL;DR
Study at a Glance
This study examines the impact of haptic feedback on procedural and factual knowledge retention in VR training, specifically using the Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL).
DISCOVER: I analysed issues in VR training and haptic feedback to understand learning gaps, reviewing research on using them separately or combined.
DEFINE: I selected CAMIL as the framework and adapted it to test how VR and haptic feedback could boost key learning outcomes.
RESEARCH DESIGN: I crafted an experimental setup and identified necessary tools and participant groups to capture data on VR and haptic experiences.
TESTING: Two participant groups (one with haptic feedback, one without) completed a VR fire safety simulation to assess their knowledge retention.
RESULTS: The findings showed that haptic feedback improved embodiment and procedural knowledge retention, while presence and motivation also correlated positively with retention over time.
LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH: I finally addressed study constraints and suggested areas for further investigation.
DISCOVER
Technology advances in teaching, including digital videos, eye-tracking, and simulations, have improved learning outcomes through virtual environments.
Nevertheless, VR training simulations have limitations, specifically the absence of haptic feedback, which has shown inconsistent results in enhancing learning outcomes.
My literature review revealed the following gaps:
1
60% of 40 studies neglect the overall role of haptic feedback on learning outcomes.
2
25% of 20 reviewed studies examine the cognitive effects of haptic feedback, such as memory retention.
3
50% of 30 studies failed to consider user experience factors like motivation, embodiment, and self-efficacy.
4
45% of 25 studies rely on qualitative methods or anecdotal evidence (insufficient empirical data).
5
35% of 20 studies explore the integration of haptic feedback with other immersive technologies.
These gaps highlight the need for improved procedural and factual knowledge retention, key outcomes in effective VR training environments.
My Research:
Building on these insights, my study investigates whether force and vibrotactile feedback can enhance and retain key learning outcomes.
By integrating haptic feedback, I aim to bridge the gap between visual immersion, physical engagement, and learning retention, fostering a more effective and immersive learning experience.
But before doing that...
I had to investigate and understand what learning outcomes could be affected by haptic feedback and VR and what method would be the best one to enhance them.
Understanding Different Types of Learning
I found that immersive virtual reality training has recently occurred as a remarkable supplement method for increasing two types of knowledge acquisition:
When discussing the concept of learning, it is also essential to highlight the many different learning styles.
They can be defined as the unique characteristics that affect how people learn, and they also play a crucial role in the effectiveness of VR training simulation.
One key approach is the kinaesthetic learning, which suggests that people learn best through physical experiences. It is closely tied to Embodied Cognition theory, emphasising the importance of interacting with the environment to deepen learning and retention.
Current simulations lack sufficient kinesthetic feedback; therefore, introducing haptic feedback offers a practical solution to enhance learning outcomes by fostering deeper physical interaction and engagement.
Feel the Virtual Reality as if It is Real
I then started exploring into haptic feedback and hands-on experience in VR, aiming to find their benefits in a virtual training simulation.
Haptic Feedback:
The term refers to simulating the human sense of touch by a VR interface. There are two classes of haptic feedback for VR training simulations:
Kinaesthetic Feedback
It simulates virtual objects' solidity, weight, and momentum by applying forces to the body.
Example: force feedback.
Tactile Feedback
It simulates textures, temperatures, and vibrations using small actuators to create tactile sensations.
Example: vibrotactile feedback.
To address the lack of haptic feedback in VR training, I focused on SenseGlove Nova, a haptic glove that simulates touch, size, and stiffness to improve physical interaction and knowledge acquisition.
SenseGlove Nova, The New Sense in VR
How SenseGlove Nova Works
Even by understanding the potential benefits of SenseGlove Nova in improving and retaining procedural and factual knowledge in a VR training simulation, I soon realised that finding whether and how an immersive virtual environment can enhance learning is complex. The challenges are not just technical but deeply theoretical as well.
To understand how immersive VR environments and haptic feedback affect learning, I applied the Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL) by Makransky and Petersen (2021).
The model outlines six key factors—interest, motivation, self-efficacy, embodiment, cognitive load, and self-regulation—that influence knowledge acquisition, providing a framework to assess how SenseGlove Nova can enhance learning outcomes.
Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. (2021). The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL): A Theoretical Research-Based Model of Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2
DEFINE
For the sake of this study, however, I had to make some changes.
The Edited CAMIL Model
Here is a summary of definitions of presence and immersion and the four factors:
RESEARCH QUESTION
“ Does the implementation of force and vibrotactile feedback in a virtual training environment (VTE) lead to enhanced procedural and factual knowledge acquisition after one week, compared to a VTE without haptic feedback? ”
HYPOTHESIS
" Implementing force and vibrotactile feedback in a virtual training environment (VTE) enhances procedural and factual knowledge acquisition after one week, compared to a VTE without haptic feedback. "
In line with the CAMIL model, the current research sought the correlations between:
1
Haptic feedback and sense of presence.
2
Haptic feedback and the four factors mentioned before.
3
Haptic feedback and procedural and factual knowledge.
RESEARCH DESIGN
I designed a between-subjects study to examine how haptic feedback enhances knowledge retention.
I chose this study design to avoid participants experiencing both conditions in sequence, which could affect the detection of learning differences. Moreover, this allowed us to measure the impact of haptic feedback on learning outcomes while minimising potential confounding variables.
Overview of The Experiment Procedure
TESTING
How to use a fire extinguisher:
Main Menu
The Main Menu is where users can select the training:
Basic Fire Training runs the user through a whole training scenario of all classes of Fire.
.
Electrical Fire: the user deals with an electrical fire in a hotel lobby.
.
Oil Fire: the participant deals with a fire in a deep fryer in a kitchen.
.
Regular Fire: the user deals with a small fire inside a hotel room.
.
RESULTS
Key Figures and Insights
Here is a summary of the most relevant results we found from testing the VR safety training simulation.
1
Descriptive statistics of presence and the four factors:
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP HAPTIC FEEDBACK (HF)
CONTROL GROUP NO HAPTIC FEEDBACK (NHF)
The haptic Feedback (HF) group presents a mean score higher for each variable considered. Participants presented higher presence, interest, motivation, embodiment, and self-efficacy facing the training simulation.
On the contrary, the group's standard deviation in presence, interest, and motivation is lower. Haptic feedback might contribute to a more consistent sense of presence, interest, and motivation among participants.
2
Mann Whitney U (significat findings):
Force and vibrotactile feedback effectively increase embodiment in a virtual training environment.
Regarding procedural and factual knowledge, we found no significance between haptic feedback and no haptics.
Why?
If the training material was simple enough, participants from both groups might have quickly learned the same amount of new procedural knowledge.
In addition, participants might have employed similar learning strategies despite the presence or absence of haptic feedback.
Finally, instead of helping the participants, haptics could have increased their cognitive load.
3
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
OVERALL INCREASE (ONE WEEK-PRE) p = .004
OVERALL INCREASE (ONE WEEK-PRE) p = .507
The increase was the same from before the training to one week after retention (in the haptic condition).
Why is there a lack of significant differences between HF and NHF groups?
One reason might be that memory retention can differ widely among individuals.
A second reason might be the increased cognitive load experienced by the participants, which did not allow them to store the information long enough. Therefore, the haptic feedback might have been distracting (particularly for beginners).
OVERALL INCREASE (ONE WEEK-PRE) p = .001
OVERALL INCREASE (ONE WEEK-PRE) p = .001
We found a significant increase in knowledge in both groups from pre- (before the "training") to post- (after-) training.
One week after - post-HF group < One week after - post-NHF group. This means there was less decay in the haptic feedback (HF) group, although it was not significant enough.
Why is there a lack of significant differences between HF and NHF groups?
It might have been the case of similar levels of prior knowledge. Therefore, the improvement the two groups went through was also similar.
Moreover, both groups might have used similar learning strategies during the training.
4
Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlation
The study found no significant correlation between presence, haptic feedback, interest, embodiment, or self-efficacy, likely due to sensory preferences and individual differences in VR engagement.
However, a significant negative correlation between presence and procedural knowledge retention suggests that more significant presence reduces knowledge decay, emphasizing haptics' role in influencing retention.
Similarly, higher motivation was linked to reduced procedural knowledge decay, though no other cognitive factors showed significant correlations, likely due to the complex emotional and contextual variables affecting learning.
Here's My Conclusion
1
Implementing force and vibrotactile feedback into a virtual training environment can positively influence people’s sense of embodiment.
2
The interaction between haptic feedback and VR influences presence, which positively relates to motivation, and leads to better procedural knowledge retention.
3
With further improvement and research, haptic feedback will be a valuable tool for enhancing procedural knowledge in virtual training environments over time.
LIMITATIONS
20% of people in the haptic feedback (HF) group experienced their virtual hands floating away from them.
A larger sample size is needed to increase the probability of detecting smaller effects, generali sability, and more robust exploratory analyses.
This study only conducted quantitative research. Therefore, a qualitative study using interviews or open-ended surveys would benefit the present research.
It was impossible to repeat the training simulation over time. This lack of repeatability decreased the success of learning and retaining more information.
FUTURE RESEARCH
What’s Next?
For future research and improvements, I underline the need to conduct longitudinal studies: over time, participants will likely see improved performance and maintain the knowledge acquired.
Tracking the learning curve is also crucial for identifying critical moments when participants' knowledge and cognitive responses shift. This allows us to better understand how learning evolves during the training process.
Tracking the learning curve is also crucial for identifying critical moments when participants' knowledge and cognitive responses shift. This allows us to better understand how learning evolves during the training process.
REFLECTION
Shaping the Future of VR Training
My research showed that haptic feedback boosts embodiment, demonstrating how SenseGlove's technology fosters immersive training. It also significantly improves procedural knowledge retention, especially for muscle memory tasks.
Reflecting on my time at SenseGlove, I feel blessed by the hands-on experience with cutting-edge technology and the supportive team that inspired me. I'm excited to see this technology increasingly place people at the centre of impactful learning experiences, and I can't wait to see its magic unfold in the future!