About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 521521, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/521521
Research Article

Is Learning in Low Immersive Environments Carried over to High Immersive Environments?

Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa, Israel

Received 20 February 2012; Accepted 18 July 2012

Academic Editor: Eva Cerezo

Copyright © 2012 Dror David Lev and Miriam Reiner. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. E. A. Abbott, Flatland: A Romance in Many Dimensions, Dover Thrift Edition (1992 Unabridged), New York, NY, USA, 1884.
  2. M. Reiner, “The role of haptics in immersive telecommunication environments,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 392–401, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. D. Hecht, M. Reiner, and A. Karni, “Multisensory enhancement: gains in choice and in simple response times,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 189, no. 2, pp. 133–143, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. D. Hecht, M. Reiner, and A. Karni, “Repetition priming for multisensory stimuli: task-irrelevant and task-relevant stimuli are associated if semantically related but with no advantage over uni-sensory stimuli,” Brain Research, vol. 1251, pp. 236–244, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. D. Hecht and M. Reiner, “Stroop interference and facilitation effects in kinesthetic and haptic tasks,” Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 2010, Article ID 852420, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. D. Hecht, M. Reiner, and A. Karni, “Enhancement of response times to bi- and tri-modal sensory stimuli during active movements,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 185, no. 4, pp. 655–665, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. D. D. Lev, R. Rozengurt, T. Gelfeld, A. Tarchenshvili, and M. Reiner, “The effects of 3d collocated presentation of visuo-haptic information on performance in a complex realistic visuo-motor task,” in Haptics: Generating and Perceiving Tangible Sensations (EuroHaptics '10), A. M. L. Kappers, J. B. F. van Erp, W. M. B. Tiest, and F. C. T. van der Helm, Eds., pp. 432–437, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010.
  8. R. Held, A. Efstathiou, and M. Greene, “Adaptation to displaced and delayed visual feedback from the hand,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 887–891, 1966.
  9. A. S. Kornheiser, “Adaptation to laterally displaced vision: a review,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 783–816, 1976. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. R. Arsenault and C. Ware, “The importance of stereo and eye-coupled perspective for eye-hand coordination in fish tank VR,” Presence, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 549–559, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. D. Swapp, V. Pawar, and C. Loscos, “Interaction with co-located haptic feedback in virtual reality,” Virtual Reality, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 24–30, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. P. M. Fitts, “The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 381–391, 1954. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. R. J. Teather, R. S. Allison, and W. Stuerzlinger, “Evaluating visual/motor co-location in fish-tank virtual reality,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Toronto International Conference—Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH '09), pp. 624–629, September 2009. View at Scopus
  14. O. Ben-Porat, M. Shoham, and J. Meyer, “Control design and task performance in endoscopic teleoperation,” Presence, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 256–267, 2000. View at Scopus
  15. P. M. Fitts and R. L. Deininger, “S-R compatibility: correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 483–492, 1954. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. R. Berguer, D. L. Forkey, and W. D. Smith, “Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 466–468, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. K. T. den Boer, T. de Jong, J. Dankelman, and D. J. Gouma, “Problems with laparoscopic instruments: opinions of experts,” Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques A, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 149–155, 2001. View at Scopus
  18. M. Silvennoinen, J. P. Mecklin, P. Saariluoma, and T. Antikainen, “Expertise and skill in minimally invasive surgery,” Scandinavian Journal of Surgery, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 209–213, 2009. View at Scopus
  19. M. Wentink, J. J. Jakimowicz, L. M. Vos, D. W. Meijer, and P. A. Wieringa, “Quantitative evaluation of three advanced laparoscopic viewing technologies: a stereo endoscope, an image projection display, and a TFT display: do these new viewing technologies improve depth perception and hand-eye coordination?” Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1237–1241, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. B. Zheng, Z. Janmohamed, and C. L. MacKenzie, “Reaction times and the decision-making process in endoscopic surgery: an experimental study,” Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1475–1480, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus