The Role of Force Feedback and Vibrotactile Feedback in Learning and Retaining Procedural and Factual Knowledge in an Immersive Virtual Training Simulation

Abstract

Immersive Virtual reality (IVR) has been adopted for training systems across different domains. However, its impact and effectiveness on learning are inconclusive and contradictory. Based on the existing literature, implementing haptic feedback is one way to improve the learning process in virtual environments for training (VTEs). To date, there needs to be more literature on combining virtual reality and haptic feedback, aiming at increasing procedural and factual knowledge retention. This study investigates whether vibrotactile and force feedback can positively influence procedural and factual knowledge in VTEs and, if so, whether this learned knowledge is retained over time. Guided by the "Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning" (CAMIL), this study examines the relationships among the interaction between haptic feedback and VR, presence, and learning outcomes. According to CAMIL, increasing presence and four key factors—interest, motivation, embodiment, and self-efficacy—through haptic feedback will lead to procedural and factual knowledge retention. A between-subject design employed the SenseGlove Nova and Oculus Meta Quest Pro in a virtual fire safety training simulation to empirically test these hypotheses. Participants were divided into experimental (HF) and control groups (NHF), with haptic feedback activation changing between the two conditions. Both groups completed pre-training questionnaires assessing their prior VR and haptics experience, knowledge of fire safety training, and existing procedural and factual knowledge. Following the training session, participants completed a second questionnaire about presence, interest, motivation, embodiment, and self-efficacy using the 5-point Likert scale; questions that measured procedural and factual knowledge retention post-training were also provided. Next, a follow-up survey was conducted one week later to evaluate knowledge retention. In total, 70 participants were recruited, but only 68 (M = 24.6 years, SD = 27.5 years) were considered due to the lack of two participants' responses after one week. Although no significant differences were found between the experimental and control groups, the current research shows increased retention of procedural knowledge through haptic feedback after the first training session; likewise, participants could retain procedural information one week after the training session. In the same way, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the sense of presence and the three factors, except for embodiment, where a significant difference was found. Finally, a positive correlation was found in the experimental group between the sense of presence and motivation; presence was also negatively correlated with the decrease of procedural knowledge after one week: increasing presence decreased the decay of the said knowledge. In addition to these findings, motivation had a negative and significant correlation with the same decrease in procedural knowledge retained after one week. This finding has practical consequences and only partially answers the present study's main research question. Several reasons can explain the lack of significant results. These include participants' different learning techniques to memorise the information, the single try-out training session, a sub-optimal training simulation, and problems during the experiments.