This study comparatively evaluated three assembly manual types (traditional paper-based, user-fixed AR, and world-fixed AR) in terms of task performance, dlPFC hemodynamic responses, and perceived workload.
Background
Prior studies of AR and traditional assembly manuals have relied mainly on subjective workload ratings, providing only an indirect view of cognitive effort. Neurophysiological assessment can quantify mental workload more directly. Measuring dlPFC activation may offer a process-specific index of cognitive control demands.
Method
Twenty-four participants performed a 7-min modified Purdue Pegboard Test with each manual type in a within-subjects design. Task performance, dlPFC hemodynamic responses, and perceived workload were assessed. fNIRS was used to measure hemodynamic responses.
Results
The world-fixed AR manual yielded significantly better task performance than both paper-based and user-fixed AR manuals, particularly in reducing location errors. Both AR manuals elicited significantly higher dlPFC activation than the paper-based manual, indicating elevated cognitive control demands. Perceived workload did not differ significantly across manual types.
Conclusion
The world-fixed AR manual improved task performance by reducing information access cost, yet both AR manuals increased cognitive control demands relative to the paper-based manual, likely due to perceptual conflicts inherent in AR. The user-fixed AR manual did not outperform the paper-based version, indicating that AR effectiveness depends on design specifics.
Application
The study recommends the world-fixed AR manual among the three types examined while emphasizing the need for innovations that reduce perceptual conflicts. It also shows that neurophysiological assessment provides insights beyond task performance and subjective ratings, supporting multidimensional evaluation to optimize interface technologies.
AlessaF. M.AlhaagM. H.Al-harkanI. M.RamadanM. Z.AlqahtaniF. M. (2023). A neurophysiological evaluation of cognitive load during augmented reality interactions in various industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Sensors, 23(18), 7698. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23187698
2.
AschenbrennerD.LeutertF.ÇençenA.VerlindenJ.SchillingK.LatoschikM.LukoschS. (2019). Comparing human factors for augmented reality supported single-user and collaborative repair operations of Industrial Robots. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00037
3.
Atici-UlusuH.IkizY. D.TaskapiliogluO.GunduzT. (2021). Effects of augmented reality glasses on the cognitive load of assembly operators in the automotive industry. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 34(5), 487–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192x.2021.1901314
4.
AyazH.DehaisF. (Eds.), (2018). Neuroergonomics: The brain at work and in everyday life. Academic Press.
5.
AyazH.WillemiB.BunceS.ShewokisP.IzzetogluK.HahS.DeshmukhA.OnaralB. (2010). Cognitive workload assessment of air traffic controllers using optical brain imaging sensors. In Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics Series (pp. 21–31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1201/ebk1439835012-c3
6.
AzumaR.BaillotY.BehringerR.FeinerS.JulierS.MacIntyreB. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.963459
7.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201
BahubalendruniM. V.BiswalB. B. (2018). An efficient stable subassembly identification method towards assembly sequence generation. National Academy Science Letters, 41(6), 375–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40009-018-0679-1
11.
BaldassiS.ChengG. T.ChanJ.TianM.ChristieT.ShortM. T. (2016). Exploring immersive AR instructions for procedural tasks: The role of depth, motion, and volumetric representations. In 2016 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR-adjunct) (pp. 300–305). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ismar-adjunct.2016.0101
12.
BarnettT.KellermannsF. W.PearsonA. W.PearsonR. A. (2006). Measuring information system usage: Replication and extensions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2007.11645956
13.
BlattgersteJ.RennerP.StrengeB.PfeifferT. (2018). In-situ instructions exceed side-by-side instructions in Augmented Reality Assisted Assembly. In Proceedings of the 11th PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments conference (pp. 133–140). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197768.3197778
14.
BüttnerS.PrillaM.RöckerC. (2020). Augmented reality training for industrial assembly work - Are projection-based AR assistive systems an appropriate tool for assembly training? In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–12). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376720
15.
CarnegieK.RheeT. (2015). Reducing visual discomfort with hmds using dynamic depth of field. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 35(5), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcg.2015.98
16.
CausseM.ChuaZ.PeysakhovichV.Del CampoN.MattonN. (2017). Mental workload and neural efficiency quantified in the prefrontal cortex using fNIRS. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 5222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05378-x
17.
ChaconasN.HollererT. (2018). An evaluation of Bimanual gestures on the Microsoft hololens. In 2018 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). https://doi.org/10.1109/vr.2018.8446320
18.
ChenS. C.ChiuK. J.HsuP. F. (2024). Exploring subjective and objective measures of System effectiveness. In Extended abstracts of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–8). ACM.
19.
ChiarelliA. M.ZappasodiF.Di PompeoF.MerlaA. (2017). Simultaneous functional near-infrared spectroscopy and electroencephalography for monitoring of human brain activity and oxygenation: A Review. Neurophotonics, 4(04), 1. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.nph.4.4.041411
20.
De WaardD. (1996). The measurement of drivers’ mental workload.
21.
DravidaS.NoahJ. A.ZhangX.HirschJ. (2018). Comparison of oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin signal reliability with and without global mean removal for digit manipulation motor tasks. Neurophotonics, 5(1), Article 011006. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.NPh.5.1.011006
22.
EeseeA. K.VargaV.EignerG.RuppertT. (2025). Impact of work instruction difficulty on cognitive load and operational efficiency. Scientific Reports, 15(1), Article 11028. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95942-7
23.
EgnerT.HirschJ. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784–1790. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1594
24.
EndsleyM. R. (2020). The divergence of objective and subjective situation awareness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 14(1), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419874248
25.
EvansG.MillerJ.Iglesias PenaM.MacAllisterA.WinerE. (2017). Evaluating the Microsoft hololens through an augmented reality assembly application. In SPIE proceedings (p. 101970V). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2262626
26.
FinkK. (2020). Cognitive assistance systems for manual assembly throughout the German manufacturing industry. Journal of Applied Leadership and Management, 8(1), 38–53.
27.
FisherS. R. A.FisherR. A. (1966). The design of experiments (Vol. 21). Oliver & Boyd.
28.
FunkM.BächlerA.BächlerL.KoschT.HeidenreichT.SchmidtA. (2017). Working with augmented reality? In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments (pp. 222–229). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3056540.3056548
29.
FunkM.KoschT.GreenwaldS. W.SchmidtA. (2015). A benchmark for interactive augmented reality instructions for assembly tasks. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia (pp. 253–257). ACM.
30.
GbadeyanO.McMahonK.SteinhauserM.MeinzerM. (2016). Stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex enhances adaptive cognitive control: A high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation study. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36(50), 12530–12536. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2450-16.2016
31.
GrayW. D.FuW. T. (2004). Soft constraints in interactive behavior: The case of ignoring perfect knowledge in‐the‐world for imperfect knowledge in‐the‐head. Cognitive Science, 28(3), 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2803_3
32.
HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.). (1988). Human mental workload (Vol. 52). North-Holland.
33.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52(1), 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
34.
HayterA. J. (1986). The maximum familywise error rate of Fisher's least significant difference test. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 1000–1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478364
35.
HirshfieldL. M.WickensC.DohertyE.SpencerC.WilliamsT.HayneL. (2024). Toward workload-based adaptive automation: The utility of fNIRS for measuring load in multiple resources in the brain. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(22), 7404–7430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2266242
36.
HowellD. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology. PWS-Kent Publishing Co.
37.
HsuJ. (1996). Multiple comparisons: Theory and methods. CRC Press.
38.
HuangW.LiX.XieH.QiaoT.ZhengY.SuL.TangZ.-M.DouZ. (2022). Different cortex activation and functional connectivity in executive function between young and elder people during Stroop test: An fNIRS study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 14(1), Article 864662. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2022.864662
39.
KahnemanD. (1973). Attention and effort.
40.
KhuongB. M.KiyokawaK.MillerA.La ViolaJ. J.MashitaT.TakemuraH. (2014). The effectiveness of an AR-based context-aware assembly support system in Object Assembly. In 2014 IEEE virtual reality (VR) (pp. 57–62). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/vr.2014.6802051
41.
KinderK. T.HeimH. L.ParkerJ.LoweryK.McCrawA.EddingsR. N.DefenderferJ.SullivanJ.BussA. T. (2022). Systematic review of fNIRS studies reveals inconsistent chromophore data reporting practices. Neurophotonics, 9(04), Article 040601. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.nph.9.4.040601
42.
KramidaG. (2016). Resolving the vergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(7), 1912–1931. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2015.2473855
43.
LaramieR. S.WareC. (2002). Rivalry and interference with a head-mounted display. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9(3), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1145/568513.568516
44.
LetmatheP.RößlerM. (2022). Should firms use digital work instructions? Individual learning in an agile manufacturing setting. Journal of Operations Management, 68(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1159
45.
MandrickK.ChuaZ.CausseM.PerreyS.DehaisF. (2016). Why a comprehensive understanding of mental workload through the measurement of neurovascular coupling is a key issue for neuroergonomics?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(1), 250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00250
46.
McKendrickR.ParasuramanR.MurtzaR.FormwaltA.BaccusW.PaczynskiM.AyazH. (2016). Into the wild: Neuroergonomic differentiation of hand-held and augmented reality wearable displays during outdoor navigation with functional near infrared spectroscopy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(216), 216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00216
47.
MidwayS.RobertsonM.FlinnS.KallerM. (2020). Comparing multiple comparisons: Practical guidance for choosing the best multiple comparisons test. PeerJ, 8(1), Article e10387. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10387
MirinoP.QuaglieriA.ScoziaG.MercuriS.AlessiA.GuarigliaC.GianniniA. M.DoricchiF.PecchinendaA. (2024). Role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in processing temporal anomalies retained in working memory. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(1), Article 1494227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2024.1494227
50.
MolaviB.DumontG. A. (2012). Wavelet-based motion artifact removal for functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Physiological Measurement, 33(2), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/33/2/259
51.
MorayN. (Ed.). (2013). Mental workload: Its theory and measurement (Vol. 8). Springer Science & Business Media.
52.
NakanishiM.SatoT. (2015). Application of digital manuals with a retinal imaging display in manufacturing: Behavioral, physiological, and psychological effects on workers. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 25(2), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20535
53.
OshimaK.MoserK. R.RompapasD. C.SwanJ. E.IkedaS.YamamotoG.TaketomiT.SandorC.KatoH. (2016). SharpView: Improved clarity of defocused content on optical see-through head-mounted displays. In 2016 IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces (3DUI) (pp. 173–181). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/3dui.2016.7460049
ParasuramanR.WilsonG. F. (2008). Putting the brain to work: Neuroergonomics Past, present, and future. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 468–474. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x288349
56.
PattersonR.WinterbottomM. D.PierceB. J. (2006). Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(3), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006778606877
57.
PintiP.AichelburgC.GilbertS.HamiltonA.HirschJ.BurgessP.TachtsidisI. (2018). A review on the use of wearable functional near‐infrared spectroscopy in naturalistic environments. Japanese Psychological Research, 60(4), 347–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12206
58.
PiperS. K.KruegerA.KochS. P.MehnertJ.HabermehlC.SteinbrinkJ.ObrigH.SchmitzC. H. (2014). A wearable multi-channel fNIRS system for brain imaging in freely moving subjects. NeuroImage, 85(0 1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.062
PolloniniL.BortfeldH.OghalaiJ. S. (2016). Phoebe: A method for real time mapping of optodes-scalp coupling in functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Biomedical Optics Express, 7(12), 5104–5119. https://doi.org/10.1364/boe.7.005104
61.
PolloniniL.OldsC.AbayaH.BortfeldH.BeauchampM. S.OghalaiJ. S. (2014). Auditory cortex activation to natural speech and simulated cochlear implant speech measured with functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Hearing Research, 309(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2013.11.007
62.
QinY.BulbulT. (2023). An EEG-based mental workload evaluation for AR head-mounted display use in construction assembly tasks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(9), Article 04023088. https://doi.org/10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-13438
63.
RennerP.PfeifferT. (2017). Attention guiding techniques using peripheral vision and eye tracking for feedback in augmented-reality-based Assistance Systems. In 2017 IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces (3DUI) (pp. 186–194). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/3dui.2017.7893338
64.
RobertsonT.BischofJ.GeymanM.LiseE. (2018). Reducing maintenance error with wearable technology. In 2018 annual reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS) (pp. 1–6). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1109/ram.2018.8463068
65.
RodriguezF. S.SaleemK.SpilskiJ.LachmannT. (2021). Performance differences between instructions on paper vs digital glasses for a simple assembly task. Applied Ergonomics, 94(1), Article 103423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103423
66.
SeeligerA.MerzG.HolzC.FeuerriegelS. (2021). Exploring the effect of visual cues on eye gaze during AR-guided picking and assembly tasks. In 2021 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality adjunct (ISMAR-adjunct) (pp. 159–164). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ismar-adjunct54149.2021.00041
67.
ShibataT.KimJ.HoffmanD. M.BanksM. S. (2011). The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. Journal of Vision, 11(8), 11. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.8.11
StraubD.LimayemM.Karahanna-EvaristoE. (1995). Measuring system usage: Implications for is theory testing. Management Science, 41(8), 1328–1342. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.41.8.1328
70.
SudhaS.Keshav KollaV.SanchezA.PlapperP. (2021). Comparing effectiveness of paper based and Augmented Reality instructions for manual assembly and training tasks. In Proceedings of the conference on learning factories (CLF) (Vol. 31). Springer.
71.
TangA.OwenC.BioccaF.MouW. (2003). Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 73–80). https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642626
72.
TiffinJ.AsherE. J. (1948). The Purdue Pegboard: Norms and studies of reliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061266
73.
Van KrevelenD. W. F.PoelmanR. (2010). A survey of Augmented Reality Technologies, applications and limitations. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.20870/ijvr.2010.9.2.2767
74.
VassenaE.GerritsR.DemanetJ.VergutsT.SiugzdaiteR. (2019). Anticipation of a mentally effortful task recruits dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: An fNIRS validation study. Neuropsychologia, 123(1), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.04.033
75.
WangL.TörngrenM.OnoriM. (2015). Current status and advancement of cyber-physical systems in manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 37(1), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.008
76.
WangX.DunstonP. S. (2006). Potential of augmented reality as an assistant viewer for computer-aided drawing. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 20(6), 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0887-3801(2006)20:6(437)
77.
WannJ. P.RushtonS.Mon-WilliamsM. (1995). Natural problems for stereoscopic depth perception in Virtual Environments. Vision Research, 35(19), 2731–2736. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(95)00018-u
78.
WardenA. C.WickensC. D.CleggB. A.OrtegaF. R. (2024). Quantitative effects of overlay clutter and information access effort: Examining the scan-clutter trade-off in displays with geospatial maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.
79.
WardenA. C.WickensC. D.MifsudD.OuradaS.CleggB. A.OrtegaF. R. (2022). Visual search in augmented reality: Effect of target cue type and location. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 66(1), 373–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181322661260
80.
WerrlichS.DanielA.GingerA.NguyenP.-A.NotniG. (2018). Comparing HMD-based and paper-based training. In 2018 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR). https://doi.org/10.1109/ismar.2018.00046
81.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical issues in ergonomics science, 3(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806
82.
WickensC. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x288394
WidmannA.SchrögerE.MaessB. (2015). Digital filter design for electrophysiological data – A practical approach. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 250(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.08.002
85.
WiedenmaierS.OehmeO.SchmidtL.LuczakH. (2003). Augmented reality (AR) for assembly processes design and experimental evaluation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 16(3), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1603_7
86.
WilcoxT.BiondiM. (2015). fNIRS in the developmental sciences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(3), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1343
87.
ZapałaD.AugustynowiczP.TokovarovM. (2022). Recognition of attentional states in VR environment: An fNIRS study. Sensors, 22(9), 3133. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22093133
88.
ZariG.CondinoS.CutoloF.FerrariV. (2023). Magic Leap 1 versus Microsoft hololens 2 for the visualization of 3D content obtained from radiological images. Sensors, 23(6), 3040. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23063040
89.
ZhaoG.FengP.ZhangJ.YuD.WuZ. (2021). Information integration and instruction authoring of augmented assembly systems. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 36(9), 5028–5050. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22501
90.
ZhuY.Rodriguez-ParasC.RheeJ.MehtaR. K. (2020). Methodological approaches and recommendations for functional near-infrared spectroscopy applications in HF/E Research. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 62(4), 613–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819845275
