open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 0376-4672
This research examined the difference in cognitive load and the virtual presence depending on auditory feedback and task difficulty in haptic-based dental simulation. In the field of dental education, practice-centered training using handpiece has been crucial because a practitioner's psychomotor experience has a significant impact on the mastery of treatment skills. For the novice, it is necessary to reduce errors in dental treatment to enhancing skill acquisition in the haptic practice. In the training process, the force-feedback is crucial to elaborate subtle movement to guide what to do and how it should be hard or soft. However, It is not easy to add force-feedback to generate kinetic experience training. As an alternative method, we examined that auditory feedback can help learners' skill training. In this study, we analyzed how the presence/absence of auditory feedback at the different levels of task difficulty impacts learners' psychological demand and virtual presence in the virtual reality simulation. For this study, 29 dental college students participated in a dental simulation. The participants were grouped into two conditions that are with and without auditory feedback. Additionally, two consecutive tooth preparation tasks with different levels of difficulty were used in the simulation. The auditory feedback condition gives alarms to a learner when he treats a non-targeted tooth with a virtual handpiece. The user's cognitive load and virtual presence were measured to examine the effects of auditory feedback. The results revealed that the main effect was found in cognitive loads. Also, a significant interaction effect was shown in the virtual presence. We discussed the effective design methods for the virtual reality-based dental simulation through the result of this study.
1. Crespo R, García R, Quiroz S. Virtual reality application for simulation and off-line programming of the mitsubishi movemaster RVM1robot integrated with the oculus rift to improve students training. Procedia Comput Sci 2015;75: 107-112.
2. Schrader C, Bastiaens T. Relations between the tendency to invest in virtual presence, actual virtual presence, and learning outcomes in educational computer games. Int J Hum-Comput Int 2012;28(12):775-783.
3. Roy E, Bakr MM, George R. The need for virtual reality simulators in dental education: A review. Saudi J Dent Res 2017;29(2):41-47.
4. Sallnäs EL, Rassmus-Gröhn K, Sjöström C. Supporting presence in collaborative environments by haptic force feedback. Acm T Comput-Hum Int. 2000;7(4):461-476.
5. Witmer BG, Singer MJ. Measuring presence in virtual environments:A presence questionnaire. Presence. 1998;7(3):225-240.
6. Rovers, AF, van ESSEN HA. HIM: a framework for haptic instant messaging. CHI'04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2004; 1313-1316.
7. Stone RJ. Haptic feedback: A brief history from telepresence to virtual reality. International Workshop on Haptic Human-Computer Interaction 2000;1-16.
8. Park S. A developed of virtual reality contents of cultural heritage utilize the Haptic interface system - Focused on Keum-san-sa content-. Journal of Korea Design Forum 2010;26(0): 245-254.
9. Lindén A, Davies RC, Boschian K, Minör U, Olsson R, Sonesson B, Johansson G. Special considerations for navigation and interaction in virtual environments for people with brain injury. In The International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality & Assoc. Tech 2000;287-296
10. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educ Psychol 2003;38(1):1-4.
11. Van Merrienboer JJG, Schuurman JG, De Croock, MBM, Paas FGWC. Redirecting learners' attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learn instr 2002;12(1):11-37.
12. Ryu J. Sensitivity of Cognitive Load Factors and Prediction for Learning Achievement upon the Levels of Task in Multimedia Learning. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Information and Media 2011;17(3):309-332.
13. Schubert T, Friedmann F, Regenbrecht H. The Experience of Presence:Factor Analytic Insights. Presence 2001;10(3):266-281.
14. Quinn F, Keogh P, McDonald A, Hussey D. A study comparing the effectiveness of conventional training and virtual reality simulation in the skills acquisition of junior dental students. Eur J Dent Educ 2003;7(4):164-169.
15. Murbay S, Neelakantan P, Chang JWW, Yeung S. Evaluation of the introduction of a dental virtual simulator on the performance of undergraduate dental students in the pre-clinical operative dentistry course. Eur J Dent Educ 2020;24(1):5-16.
16. Ziv A, Wolpe PR, Small SD, Glick S. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Simul Healthc 2006;1(4):252-256.
17. Jasinevicius TR, Landers M, Nelson S, Urbankova A. An evaluation of two dental simulation systems: virtual reality versus contemporary non-computer-assisted. J Dent Educ 2004;68(11):1151-1162.
18. Buchanan JA. Use of simulation technology in dental education. J Dent Educ 2001;65(11):1225-1231.
19. Johnson, S, Coxon, M. Sound can enhance the analgesic effect of virtual reality. R Soc Open Sci 2016;3(3):150567.