Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Virtual and Remote Robotic Laboratory: Comparative Experimental Evaluation

Open access
Tzafestas, C.S., Palaiologou, N., Alifragis, M.·2006·IEEE Transactions on Education

Abstract

This paper describes the development and experimental evaluation of an e-laboratory platform in the field of robotics. The system in its current configuration is designed to enable distance training of students in real scenarios of robot manipulator programming. From a technological perspective, the research work presented in this paper is directed towards the adaptation of concepts and techniques developed in the field of telerobotics and virtual reality, and their integration in such e-laboratory settings. This paper focuses particularly on the educational impact of such systems. The goal is to assess the performance of e-laboratory scenarios in terms of the efficacy of training provided to students. The results of a pilot experimental study are presented, providing a comparative evaluation for three training modalities: real, remote, and virtual training on robot manipulator programming. The experiments were conducted according to an evaluation protocol specially designed for the considered target training task, using scoring charts to obtain quantitative performance measures and assess the performance of the student groups participating in the course. Training, as a dynamic process, is approached according to a classical three dimensional model, and performance scores are accordingly assessed in these dimensions (namely: low-level versus mid and high-level skills and understanding). The obtained results reveal certain differences between the three groups, particularly as related to the low-level skill training score, giving some insight about the training `dimensions' that are expected to be mostly affected by the absence of physical (or realistic virtual) presence in a real hands-on experimentation. Statistical analysis indicates, however, that, despite these apparent differences, such e-laboratory modules can be integrated quite effectively in practical scenarios, creating virtual training environments that can provide adequate learning elements, as related particularly to mid and high-level skill acquisition. Further work and large-scale studies are still needed, though, in order to explore the extent to which such a general conclusion is valid in different training settings, and to form the basis of a more theoretical evaluation for a comprehensive understanding of the pedagogical differences between real, virtual, and remote learning/training methodologies and experiences

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/te.2006.879255

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Tzafestas, C. S., Palaiologou, N., & Alifragis, M.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Education
Published
2006-08
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
360-369
ISSN
0018-9359 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156117078
Cited by
195
References
0
FWCI
34.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Virtual and Remote Robotic Laboratory: Comparative Experimental Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/te.2006.879255
The paper
Tzafestas, C. S., Palaiologou, N., & Alifragis, M. (2006). Virtual and Remote Robotic Laboratory: Comparative Experimental Evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Education. https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2006.879255

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.