<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Physical props | Étienne Peillard</title><link>https://www.etiennepeillard.com/tag/physical-props/</link><atom:link href="https://www.etiennepeillard.com/tag/physical-props/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><description>Physical props</description><generator>Wowchemy (https://wowchemy.com)</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>The Influence of a Prop Mass on Task Performance in Virtual Reality</title><link>https://www.etiennepeillard.com/publication/thomesse-2024-prop-mass/</link><pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.etiennepeillard.com/publication/thomesse-2024-prop-mass/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="study-at-a-glance">Study at a glance&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>This follow-up study examines a different question from training transfer: how does the mass of a physical prop affect immediate interaction in Virtual Reality? Participants completed a within-subject pointing task with three replicas of the same tool, each with a different mass.&lt;/p>
&lt;h2 id="the-experimental-task">The experimental task&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>The participant selected targets in VR using a tracked tool replica. The design captured both objective performance—error-free selection time and number of errors—and subjective experience, including perceived difficulty and cognitive load.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>
&lt;figure >
&lt;div class="d-flex justify-content-center">
&lt;div class="w-100" >&lt;img alt="First-person view of the target-selection task in Virtual Reality." srcset="
/publication/thomesse-2024-prop-mass/featured_hu9f8b552aa9cb2e54616cd6cd4cdd2880_3347682_141e38f17a0942645ace67fbeca42916.webp 400w,
/publication/thomesse-2024-prop-mass/featured_hu9f8b552aa9cb2e54616cd6cd4cdd2880_3347682_2367edccebc3d575412faef23d65ba62.webp 760w,
/publication/thomesse-2024-prop-mass/featured_hu9f8b552aa9cb2e54616cd6cd4cdd2880_3347682_1200x1200_fit_q75_h2_lanczos_3.webp 1200w"
src="https://www.etiennepeillard.com/publication/thomesse-2024-prop-mass/featured_hu9f8b552aa9cb2e54616cd6cd4cdd2880_3347682_141e38f17a0942645ace67fbeca42916.webp"
width="760"
height="428"
loading="lazy" data-zoomable />&lt;/div>
&lt;/div>&lt;/figure>
&lt;/p>
&lt;p>&lt;em>First-person view of the target-selection task used in the experiment.&lt;/em>&lt;/p>
&lt;h2 id="main-result">Main result&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>Prop mass influenced both performance and experience. Participants performed significantly better with the light replica than with the heavy replica; they also reported lower difficulty and cognitive load. In contrast with the training study, this highlights that a mass mismatch can matter when the task places a premium on fast, accurate pointing.&lt;/p></description></item><item><title>Investigating Whether the Mass of a Tool Replica Influences Virtual Training Learning Outcomes</title><link>https://www.etiennepeillard.com/publication/cauquis-investigating-2024/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.etiennepeillard.com/publication/cauquis-investigating-2024/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="why-this-matters">Why this matters&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>Instrumenting a real tool for Virtual Reality training often changes its mass. This study asks whether that physical mismatch compromises what matters most: the learner’s ability to perform the gesture afterwards in real conditions.&lt;/p>
&lt;h2 id="study-at-a-glance">Study at a glance&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>Eighty participants completed a three-stage protocol: a real pre-training assessment, immersive training with a tracked replica, then a real post-training assessment. The experience covered three gestures with a one-handed rotary tool: cutting, drilling, and sanding.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>The original tool weighed &lt;strong>624 g&lt;/strong>. The three replica conditions were balanced and weighted to &lt;strong>312 g&lt;/strong> (50%), &lt;strong>624 g&lt;/strong> (100%), and &lt;strong>936 g&lt;/strong> (150%). The study combined real-task performance measures with cognitive load, usability, and perceived-learning questionnaires.&lt;/p>
&lt;h2 id="main-result">Main result&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>Across the tested conditions, learning outcomes remained comparable despite the changes in replica mass. Participants also improved on selected real-task measures, including task-completion time. Within the 300–900 g range and for these tasks, replica mass was therefore not a decisive factor for the measured learning outcomes.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>This result gives designers practical room to accommodate tracking and fabrication constraints—but it should not be overgeneralised to heavier tools, highly precise gestures, or tasks that require stronger proprioceptive or haptic feedback.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>