Dynamic Cognitive Load Assessment in Virtual Reality

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH SIMULATION & GAMING Pub Date : 2024-04-20 DOI:10.1177/10468781241248821
Rachel L. Elkin, Jeff M. Beaubien, Nathaniel Damaghi, Todd P. Chang, David O. Kessler
{"title":"Dynamic Cognitive Load Assessment in Virtual Reality","authors":"Rachel L. Elkin, Jeff M. Beaubien, Nathaniel Damaghi, Todd P. Chang, David O. Kessler","doi":"10.1177/10468781241248821","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundRecent advances in non-invasive physiologic monitoring leverage machine learning to provide unobtrusive, real-time assessments of a learner’s cognitive load (CL) as they engage in specific tasks. However, the performance characteristics of these novel composite physiologic CL measures are incompletely understood.ObjectivesWe aimed to 1) explore the feasibility of measuring CL in real time using physiologically-derived inputs; 2) evaluate the performance characteristics of a novel composite CL measure during simulated virtual reality resuscitations; and 3) understand how this measure compares to traditional, self-reported measures of CL.MethodsNovice (PGY1-2 pediatric residents) and expert (pediatric emergency medicine fellows and attendings) participants completed four virtual reality simulations as team leader. The scenario content (status epilepticus versus anaphylaxis) and level of distraction (high versus low) were manipulated. Cognitive load was measured in all participants using electroencephalography and electrocardiography data (“real-time CL”) as well as through self-report (NASA-TLX). Scenario performance also was measured.ResultsComplete data were available for 6 experts and 6 novices. Experts generally had lower CL than novices on both measures. Both measures localized the most significant differences between groups to the anaphylaxis scenarios (real-time CL [low-distraction] Cohen’s d -1.33 [95% CI -.2.56, -0.03] and self-reported CL [high-distraction] Cohen’s d -1.41 [95% CI -2.67, -0.10]). No consistent differences were seen with respect to level of distraction. Performance was similar between the two groups, though both exhibited fewer errors over time (F<jats:sub>(3,48)</jats:sub> = 5.75, p = .002).ConclusionIt is feasible to unobtrusively measure cognitive load in real time during virtual reality simulations. There was convergence between the two CL measures: in both, experts had lower CL than novices, with the most significant effect size differences in the more challenging anaphylaxis scenarios.","PeriodicalId":47521,"journal":{"name":"SIMULATION & GAMING","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SIMULATION & GAMING","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781241248821","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundRecent advances in non-invasive physiologic monitoring leverage machine learning to provide unobtrusive, real-time assessments of a learner’s cognitive load (CL) as they engage in specific tasks. However, the performance characteristics of these novel composite physiologic CL measures are incompletely understood.ObjectivesWe aimed to 1) explore the feasibility of measuring CL in real time using physiologically-derived inputs; 2) evaluate the performance characteristics of a novel composite CL measure during simulated virtual reality resuscitations; and 3) understand how this measure compares to traditional, self-reported measures of CL.MethodsNovice (PGY1-2 pediatric residents) and expert (pediatric emergency medicine fellows and attendings) participants completed four virtual reality simulations as team leader. The scenario content (status epilepticus versus anaphylaxis) and level of distraction (high versus low) were manipulated. Cognitive load was measured in all participants using electroencephalography and electrocardiography data (“real-time CL”) as well as through self-report (NASA-TLX). Scenario performance also was measured.ResultsComplete data were available for 6 experts and 6 novices. Experts generally had lower CL than novices on both measures. Both measures localized the most significant differences between groups to the anaphylaxis scenarios (real-time CL [low-distraction] Cohen’s d -1.33 [95% CI -.2.56, -0.03] and self-reported CL [high-distraction] Cohen’s d -1.41 [95% CI -2.67, -0.10]). No consistent differences were seen with respect to level of distraction. Performance was similar between the two groups, though both exhibited fewer errors over time (F(3,48) = 5.75, p = .002).ConclusionIt is feasible to unobtrusively measure cognitive load in real time during virtual reality simulations. There was convergence between the two CL measures: in both, experts had lower CL than novices, with the most significant effect size differences in the more challenging anaphylaxis scenarios.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
虚拟现实中的动态认知负荷评估
背景无创生理监测领域的最新进展是利用机器学习对学习者在完成特定任务时的认知负荷(CL)进行无干扰的实时评估。我们的目的是:1)探索使用生理输入实时测量认知负荷的可行性;2)评估在模拟虚拟现实复苏过程中新型复合认知负荷测量方法的性能特征;3)了解该测量方法与传统的自我报告认知负荷测量方法的比较。模拟场景的内容(癫痫状态与过敏性休克)和分散注意力的程度(高与低)均有不同。使用脑电图和心电图数据("实时 CL")以及自我报告(NASA-TLX)对所有参与者的认知负荷进行了测量。此外,还对情景表现进行了测量。在这两项测量中,专家的 CL 值普遍低于新手。在过敏性休克情景中,两组之间的差异最为显著(实时 CL [低分心] Cohen's d -1.33 [95% CI -.2.56, -0.03]和自我报告 CL [高分心] Cohen's d -1.41 [95% CI -2.67, -0.10])。分散注意力水平方面没有发现一致的差异。两组的表现相似,但随着时间的推移,两组都表现出较少的错误(F(3,48) = 5.75, p = .002)。两种认知负荷测量之间存在趋同性:在这两种测量中,专家的认知负荷均低于新手,在更具挑战性的过敏性休克情景中,效应大小差异最为显著。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
SIMULATION & GAMING
SIMULATION & GAMING EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research contains articles examining academic and applied issues in the expanding fields of simulation, computerized simulation, gaming, modeling, play, role-play, debriefing, game design, experiential learning, and related methodologies. The broad scope and interdisciplinary nature of Simulation & Gaming are demonstrated by the wide variety of interests and disciplines of its readers, contributors, and editorial board members. Areas include: sociology, decision making, psychology, language training, cognition, learning theory, management, educational technologies, negotiation, peace and conflict studies, economics, international studies, research methodology.
期刊最新文献
Toxicity or Prosociality?: Civic Value and Gaming Citizenship in Competitive Video Game Communities The Importance of Relaxation and Vacation for Healthcare Workers: Playtime! On the Pre-Perception of Gamification and Game-Based Learning in Higher Education Students: A Systematic Mapping Study Change the Rules! Using Social Media Data to Understand Citizen Perceptions of Urban Planning in a City Simulation Game
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1