Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks

TLDR

VR and AR systems are increasingly viewed as promising platforms for complex industrial maintenance and assembly tasks, yet their efficiency and effectiveness compared to traditional training methods remain empirically unverified. This study aimed to empirically evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of VR and AR platforms, developed under the SKILLS Integrated Project, for training industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Forty expert technicians were randomly assigned to VR, Control‑VR, AR, or Control‑AR training groups on an electronic actuator assembly task, with post‑training performance assessed in the real task. Results showed that VR and AR training required longer training time, the AR group had fewer unsolved errors, and final performance did not differ significantly between VR and Control‑VR, indicating that AR training should be encouraged while VR warrants further evaluation.

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.