On the user-based assessments of virtual reality for public safety training in urban open spaces depending on immersion levels

IF 4.7 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Safety Science Pub Date : 2025-02-08 DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106803
Mariella De Fino , Federica Cassano , Gabriele Bernardini , Enrico Quagliarini , Fabio Fatiguso
{"title":"On the user-based assessments of virtual reality for public safety training in urban open spaces depending on immersion levels","authors":"Mariella De Fino ,&nbsp;Federica Cassano ,&nbsp;Gabriele Bernardini ,&nbsp;Enrico Quagliarini ,&nbsp;Fabio Fatiguso","doi":"10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The increasing use of VR (Virtual Reality) training tools in safety-related fields has prompted the scientific community to explore methods for assessing their effectiveness across different levels of immersion. While numerous studies have been conducted in sectors such as healthcare, transportation, agriculture, aviation, mining, firefighting, and construction, one area that remains underexplored is risk training for general public against natural and man-made disasters in both indoor and outdoor built environments. In this context, the paper aims at validating a prototype for VR multi-risk (heat wave and earthquake) training in urban open spaces that was developed according to a Serious Game (SG) approach. To address insights on its extensive adoption, the VR-SG was tested for comparison of three modes: traditional by video recording, non-immersive by desktop, immersive by headset. Outputs from feedback questionnaires on knowledge gain and transfer to expansive contexts, as well as on user experience, suggest that the effectiveness of knowledge acquisition differs significantly between headset and video, as well as between desktop and video, but shows no significant difference between headset and desktop. Additionally, while headset outperforms desktop in terms of engagement, perceived usefulness, and realism, it falls behind in ease of use. Finally, further analyses on training outcome by age, contents of open-ended answers, in-game errors and administration procedures supported the discussion of key aspects in targeting VR for public safety communication.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21375,"journal":{"name":"Safety Science","volume":"185 ","pages":"Article 106803"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safety Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525000281","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The increasing use of VR (Virtual Reality) training tools in safety-related fields has prompted the scientific community to explore methods for assessing their effectiveness across different levels of immersion. While numerous studies have been conducted in sectors such as healthcare, transportation, agriculture, aviation, mining, firefighting, and construction, one area that remains underexplored is risk training for general public against natural and man-made disasters in both indoor and outdoor built environments. In this context, the paper aims at validating a prototype for VR multi-risk (heat wave and earthquake) training in urban open spaces that was developed according to a Serious Game (SG) approach. To address insights on its extensive adoption, the VR-SG was tested for comparison of three modes: traditional by video recording, non-immersive by desktop, immersive by headset. Outputs from feedback questionnaires on knowledge gain and transfer to expansive contexts, as well as on user experience, suggest that the effectiveness of knowledge acquisition differs significantly between headset and video, as well as between desktop and video, but shows no significant difference between headset and desktop. Additionally, while headset outperforms desktop in terms of engagement, perceived usefulness, and realism, it falls behind in ease of use. Finally, further analyses on training outcome by age, contents of open-ended answers, in-game errors and administration procedures supported the discussion of key aspects in targeting VR for public safety communication.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Safety Science
Safety Science 管理科学-工程:工业
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
335
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Safety Science is multidisciplinary. Its contributors and its audience range from social scientists to engineers. The journal covers the physics and engineering of safety; its social, policy and organizational aspects; the assessment, management and communication of risks; the effectiveness of control and management techniques for safety; standardization, legislation, inspection, insurance, costing aspects, human behavior and safety and the like. Papers addressing the interfaces between technology, people and organizations are especially welcome.
期刊最新文献
Optimization of emergency shelter layout with consideration of toxic gas leakage based on a cell transmission model On the user-based assessments of virtual reality for public safety training in urban open spaces depending on immersion levels The influence of individual characteristics and working environment on driving performance of truck drivers Does legislating safety duties across the labour supply chain ensure contingent workers have equitable access to safety training? Neural correlates of augmented reality safety warnings: EEG analysis of situational awareness and cognitive performance in roadway work zones
×
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