Object Selection and Manipulation Techniques

The results obtained from the users for the four different selection and manipulation techniques –tangible object manipulation, haptic device, touch and snap, and touchscreen– are presented in this sub-subsection. Figure 3-15 shows the average scores for the neurotypical users, whereas Figure 3-16 shows the average scores for individuals with ASD. A score of 1 represents very little while a score of 5 represents very much of the related aspect. Users in general, felt little tired and frustrated with all interaction techniques. The averages were between “Not tired at all” and “Not tired” for tiredness and between “Not frustrated at all” and “Neutral” for frustration. On the other hand, for ease of interaction, enjoyment and immersion; the averages were above 3.0. The users with ASD found the haptic device hard to interact as compared to the other interaction techniques. Touchscreen interaction received the best results for the ease of interaction, enjoyment, and immersion aspects as compared to the other three interaction techniques.

Figure 3-15: Survey results for the selection and manipulation techniques in the VR4VR system for neurotypical individuals.

1 2 3 4 5 Average of Ease of Interaction Average of Enjoyment Average of Frustration Average of Tiredness Average of Immersion A ve ra ge Score Metric

Neurotypical - Object Selection and Manipulation

74

Figure 3-16: Survey results for the selection and manipulation techniques in the VR4VR system for individuals with ASD.

A detailed data analysis was performed on the collected data. The results showed that there were significant differences for the ease of interaction for both population groups. For the neurotypical users, there were also significant difference for frustration and tiredness aspects. The detailed results of the statistical analysis can be found in Appendix E. Further analysis showed that the touchscreen interaction led to a significantly lower frustration than all other techniques for the neurotypical users. Tangible interaction made the neurotypical users tired as compared to the touch and snap and touchscreen interactions, but the overall results were very low. For the users with

1 2 3 4 5 Average of Ease of

Interaction Average ofEnjoyment Average ofFrustration Average ofTiredness Average ofImmersion

A ve ra ge Score Metric

ASD - Object Selection and Manipulation

75

ASD, the haptic device was found to be significantly hard to interact as compared with the touchscreen.

A chart of the scores are also shown in Figure 3-17 for both neurotypical users and individuals with ASD. Detailed statistical analysis showed that the scores were significantly different for both population groups. The neurotypical users received significantly lower scores with the haptic interaction as compared to all the other interaction techniques. On the other hand, individuals with ASD scored significantly higher with the touch and snap interaction as compared to the other interaction techniques. Detailed analysis results for individuals with ASD can also be seen in Appendix E.

Figure 3-17: Performance scores for different selection and manipulation techniques in the VR4VR system for both population groups.

As the users were presented with all of the object selection and manipulation techniques they have used and asked to select one as their most preferred one, most of

0 20 40 60 80 100

Haptic Device Tangible Touch & Smap Touch Screen

A ve ra ge Score Interaction Scores Neurotypical ASD

*

*

76

the users with ASD stated preference for the touchscreen interaction and some users with ASD stated preference for the tangible object manipulation. On the other hand, most of the neurotypical users preferred tangible interaction. None of the users stated preference over haptic device or touch and snap interaction. A chart of the results is presented in Figure 3-18.

Figure 3-18: Preference of the users on the selection and manipulation techniques in the VR4VR system.

About the selection and manipulation techniques, in the conversations during the breaks, some users stated that they found shelving simplest and easiest to do and manage and some users stated that they thought that the tablet computing cashier was the most fun among the six skill modules.

The job trainers stated that they found all of the object selection and manipulation techniques reasonable to use for the individuals with ASD. They stated that they liked the tangible interaction the most as compared to the other techniques for individuals with

0 2 4 6 8 10

Haptic Device Tangible Touch & Snap Touch Screen

Preferences

Neurotypical ASD

‡

77

ASD. They found the tangible interaction very useful for the transition of the training to real life jobs and creating a sense of presence in the users via the tactile feedback. They also said that the touchscreen was very intuitive since it was just like using a smart phone, with which all of our participants with ASD were already familiar. The job trainers finally said that they observed some confusion in some of the users with ASD while using the haptic device but still they did not find it not reasonable for the use of individuals with ASD. They stated that they found the sense of weight applied by the haptic device while carrying objects in the virtual world very useful for contributing to the users’ sense of presence. As we offered to switch to the commonly used mouse interaction instead of the haptic device due to the relative low scores in ease of interaction, the job coaches stated that they preferred that we continued using the haptic device for a more effective training for individuals with ASD.