The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks
Abstract
The current study evaluated the use of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) platforms, developed within the scope of the SKILLS Integrated Project, for industrial maintenance and assembly (IMA) tasks training. VR and AR systems are now widely regarded as promising training platforms for complex and highly demanding IMA tasks. However, there is a need to empirically evaluate their efficiency and effectiveness compared to traditional training methods. Forty expert technicians were randomly assigned to four training groups in an electronic actuator assembly task: VR (training with the VR platform twice), Control-VR (watching a filmed demonstration twice), AR (training with the AR platform once), and Control-AR (training with the real actuator and the aid of a filmed demonstration once). A post-training test evaluated performance in the real task. Results demonstrate that, in general, the VR and AR training groups required longer training time compared to the Control-VR and Control-AR groups, respectively. There were fewer unsolved errors in the AR group compared to the Control-AR group, and no significant differences in final performance between the VR and Control-VR groups, probably due to a ceiling effect created by the use of two training trials in the selected task for participants who were expert technicians. The results suggest that use of the AR platform for training IMA tasks should be encouraged and use of the VR platform for that purpose should be further evaluated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Acquisition of cognitive skill
Anderson, J. R. (1982) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.4.369 · Cited by 3,663
Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982) · Judgment under Uncertainty · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477.023 · Cited by 1,967
Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6 · Cited by 989
Cited by
Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002 · Cited by 2,463
Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability
Ghobakhloo, M. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119869 · Cited by 2,115
Enhancing Our Lives with Immersive Virtual Reality
Slater, M., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2016) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2016.00074 · Cited by 1,993
User acceptance of virtual reality: An extended technology acceptance model
Sagnier, C., Loup-Escande, E., Lourdeaux, D., Thouvenin, I., & Valléry, G. (2020) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2019.1708612 · Cited by 493
Lampropoulos, G., Keramopoulos, E., Diamantaras, K., & Evangelidis, G. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12136809 · Cited by 462
Metadata
- Authors
- Gavish, N., Gutiérrez, T., Webel, S., Rodríguez, J., Peveri, M., Bockholt, U., & Tecchia, F.
- Venue
- Interactive Learning Environments
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-07-18
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 778-798
- ISSN
- 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-5191
- OpenAlex
- W2070294837
- Cited by
- 680
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10494820.2013.815221
- The paper
- Gavish, N., Gutiérrez, T., Webel, S., Rodríguez, J., Peveri, M., Bockholt, U., & Tecchia, F. (2015). Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.815221
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.