The effect of camera viewpoint was studied when performing visually obstructed psychomotor targeting tasks.
Background
Previous research in laparoscopy and robotic teleoperation found that complex perceptual-motor adaptations associated with misaligned viewpoints corresponded to degraded performance in manipulation. Because optimal camera positioning is often unavailable in restricted environments, alternative viewpoints that might mitigate performance effects are not obvious.
Methods
A virtual keyboard-controlled targeting task was remotely distributed to workers of Amazon Mechanical Turk. The experiment was performed by 192 subjects for a static viewpoint with independent parameters of target direction, Fitts’ law index of difficulty, viewpoint azimuthal angle (AA), and viewpoint polar angle (PA). A dynamic viewpoint experiment was also performed by 112 subjects in which the viewpoint AA changed after every trial.
Results
AA and target direction had significant effects on performance for the static viewpoint experiment. Movement time and travel distance increased while AA increased until there was a discrete improvement in performance for 180°. Increasing AA from 225° to 315° linearly decreased movement time and distance. There were significant main effects of current AA and magnitude of transition for the dynamic viewpoint experiment. Orthogonal direction and no-change viewpoint transitions least affected performance.
Conclusions
Viewpoint selection should aim to minimize associated rotations within the manipulation plane when performing targeting tasks whether implementing a static or dynamic viewing solution. Because PA rotations had negligible performance effects, PA adjustments may extend the space of viable viewpoints.
Applications
These results can inform viewpoint selection for visual feedback during psychomotor tasks.
AbeeleS.BockO. (2001). Sensorimotor adaptation to rotated visual input: Different mechanisms for small versus large rotations. Experimental Brain Research, 140, 407–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210100846.
2.
BandG.MillerJ. (1997). Mental Rotation Interferes with Response Preparation. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 23, 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.23.2.319.
3.
BeußF.SenderJ.FlüggeW. (2019). Ergonomics simulation in aircraft manufacturing – methods and potentials. Procedia CIRP, 81, 742–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.187.
4.
BockO.AbeeleS.EversheimU. (2003). Human adaptation to rotated vision: Interplay of a continuous and a discrete process. Experimental Brain Research, 152, 528–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1643-x.
5.
BrownB. (2011). Cinematography: Theory and practice: Image making for cinematographers and directors (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis Group.
6.
ChenK. B.SestoM. E.PontoK.LeonardJ.MasonA.VanderheidenG.RadwinR. G. (2017). Use of virtual reality feedback for patients with chronic neck pain and kinesiophobia. IEEE Transactions of Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 25, 1240–1248. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2621886.
CunninghamH. A. (1989). Aiming error under transformed spatial mappings suggests a structure for visual-motor maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.493.
9.
DeJongB. P.ColgateJ. E.PeshkinM. A. (2004). Improving teleoperation: reducing mental rotations and translations. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA’ 04. 2004, 4, 3708–3714. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2004.1308838.
10.
DeJongB. P.ColgateJ. E.PeshkinM. A. (2011). Mental transformations in human-robot interaction. In WangX (Ed.), Mixed reality and human-robot interaction. Intelligent systems, control and automation: Science and engineering (pp. 35–51). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0582-1_3.
11.
FernandezL.BootsmaR. J. (2004). Effects of biomechanical and task constraints on the organization of movement in precision aiming. Experimental Brain Research, 159(4), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-1964-4.
HannaG. B.ShimiS. M.CuschieriA. (1998). Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display. Annals of Surgery, 227, 481–484. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199804000-00005.
14.
HiattL.SimmonsR. (2006). Coordinate frames in robotic teleoperation. In 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (pp. 1712–1719). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2006.282130.
15.
KleinM. I.RileyM. A.WarmJ. S.MatthewsG. (2005). Perceived mental workload in an endoscopic surgery simulator. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (49, pp. 1014–1018). SAGE Publications.
16.
KleinM. I.WheelerN. J.CraigC. (2015). Sideways camera rotations of 90° and 135° result in poorer performance of laparoscopic tasks for novices. Human Factors, 57, 246–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814553027.
17.
LangsdorfL.MareschJ.HegeleM.McDougleS. D.SchweenR. (2021). Prolonged response time helps eliminate residual errors in visuomotor adaptation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(3), 834–844. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01865-x.
18.
MazzoniP.KrakauerJ. W. (2006). An implicit plan overrides an explicit strategy during visuomotor adaptation. Journal of neuroscience, 26, 3642–3645. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5317-05.2006.
19.
MenegonF. A.FischerF. M. (2012). Musculoskeletal reported symptoms among aircraft assembly workers: A multifactorial approach. Work, 41, 3738–3745. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0088-3738.
20.
MontgomeryD. (2012). Design and analysis of experiments (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21.
MuellerR.VetteM.GreenenA.MasiakT. (2017). Improving working conditions in aircraft productions using human-robot-collaboration in a collaborative riveting process. SAE Technical Paper, 2017-01-2096. https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-2096.
22.
MuellerR.Vette-SteinkampR.KansoM.MasiakT. (2019). Collaboration in a hybrid team of human and robot for improving working conditions in an aircraft riveting process. SAE International Journal of Advances and Current Practices in Mobility, 1, 396–403. https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-1372.
23.
NeilsonB. N.KleinM. I. (2018). Assessment of performance carryover effects due to successive exposure to different lateral camera rotations in a laparoscopic training environment. Human factors, 60, 397–414.
24.
RadwinR. G.VanderheidenG. C.LinM.-L. (1990). A method for evaluating head-controlled computer input devices using Fitts’ law. Human Factors, 32, 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089003200405.
25.
ReddingG. M.RossettiY.WallaceB. (2005). Applications of prism adaptation: A tutorial in theory and method. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.12.004.
StoelenM. F.AkinD. L. (2010). Assessment of Fitts’ law for quantifying combined rotational and translational movements. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics, 52, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810366560.
29.
ThompsonS.SlocumJ.BohanM. (2004). Gain and angle of approach effects on cursor-positioning time with a mouse in consideration of Fitts’ law. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, 48, 823–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120404800517.
30.
Touzalin-ChretienP.EhrlerS.DufourA. (2010). Dominance of vision over proprioception on motor programming: Evidence from ERP. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 2007–2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp271.
31.
WentinkM.BreedveldP.MeijerD. W.StassenH. G. (2000). Endoscopic camera rotation: A conceptual solution to improve hand-eye coordination in minimally-invasive surgery. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies, 9, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.3109/13645700009063059.
32.
WentinkM.BreedveldP.StassenL. P. S.OeiI. H.WieringaP. A. (2002). A clearly visible endoscopic instrument shaft on the monitor facilitates hand–eye coordination. Surgical Endoscopy, 16, 1533–1537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-001-9214-3.
33.
WhisenandT. G.EmurianH. H. (1996). Effects of angle of approach on cursor movement with a mouse: Consideration of Fitts’ law. Computers in Human Behavior, 12, 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(96)00020-9.
