1. Virtual reality learning software for individuals with intellectual disabilities: Comparison between touchscreen and mouse interactions E. LOUP-ESCANDE, O. CHRISTMANN, R. DAMIANO, F. HERNOUX, S. RICHIR ICDVRAT, 10-12 septembre 2012, Laval, France

2. 2 Context (1/2) Apticap Project  Partners: Laval Agglomération, ESAT Lancheneil, Enozone, CLARTE, Arts et Métiers ParisTech  Duration: 14 months (from October 2010 to December 2011)  Objective: develop a VR software vocational guidance and learning disabled workers in ESAT For vocational guidance and learning of disabled workers in ESAT learn the dishwashing activity in a semi-autonomous way Which enables individuals with mental disabilities to learn the dishwashing activity in a semi-autonomous way replaces the common techniques Which replaces the common techniques used in ESAT ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval

3. 3 Context (2/2) Apticap Software ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval 2 3 1 4 5 6 7

4. 4 Aim of the experiment To compare two interaction techniques, a mouse and a touchscreen, for performing a washing dishes task in a virtual environment by individuals with intellectual deficiencies. ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval

5. 5 Assumptions General hypothesis “Tactile” interface allows better performances and is better accepted than the mouse by individuals with mental disabilities when using a virtual environment dedicated to learning ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval Operational hypotheses H1 Individuals with mental disabilities have better performances with the touchscreen than with the mouse H2The touchscreen is better accepted. It is perceived as easier to use and more convenient by individuals with mental disabilities than the mouse

6. 6 Protocol (1/4) Participants 6 participants who suffer from a congenital mental deficiency: 2 women and 4 men  Average age: 26.3 (S.D. = 4.4 / Min = 21 / Max = 32)  Average work experience: 5.1 (S.D. = 4.1 / Min = 1 / Max = 13) ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval Material  PC with Apticap Software, optical mouse and 22'' touch screen  Voice recorder  Identification guide  Observation grid  Post-experimentation questions  A basket and five plates.

7. 7 Protocol (2/4) Procedure  Before the experimentation: identification interview  During the experimentation: The experimenter gives the instructions to the participant The experimenter lets the participant familiarize himself with the software and the task to perform, The participant performs the task into the virtual environment  After the experimentation: interview on perception of each interaction mode and on the software. ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval Validity  The test was repeated twice for each interaction mode  The presentation order was counterbalanced

8. 8 Protocol (3/4) Experimental conditions ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval Collected data  Times for the two attempts with each interaction mode and for the six participants  Verbalizations Comments were the 54 answers to binary type questions Each participant gave 9 answers on average; some participants were not able to answer all questions Justifications and suggestions Room A – Expriment Experimenter Observer Disabled worker Room B – Interviews Interviewer Educator Disabled worker

9. 9 Protocol (4/4) Analysis methods ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval  Performances Traditional descriptive statistics (i.e. average, deviation, minimum, maximum) Student T-Test  Post-experimentation interviews We counted the frequencies for each user interface evoked for each question  Confrontation of the performances and the preferences of the participants to establish a qualitative relation.

10. 10 Results (1/3) Performances ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval  Participants appeared to be were faster with the touchscreen than with the mouse  A more important speed gain with the touchscreen than with the mouse between two attempts

11. 11 Results (2/3) Preferences ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval  Touchscreen is perceived as easier and more pleasant than the mouse  4 participants prefer the touchscreen: “It's easier than the mouse” “It is more pleasant with the touchscreen but easier with the mouse” “It is easier and more pleasant than the mouse”  2 participants like “both of them”

12. 12 Results (3/3) Preferences ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval  An anticipation of the future use of Apticap software: training himself using tactile interaction  Comments 5 participants out of 6 were able to answer to questions 4/5 said they would choose the touchscreen for a long-term use of Apticap software 5 think they can use the software alone 2/4 prefer to learn with the virtual reality software

13. 13 Conclusion ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval  Initial assumptions Individuals with mental disabilities have better performances with the touchscreen than with the mouse  Not confirmed neither invalidated The touchscreen is better accepted. It is perceived as easier to use and more convenient by individuals with mental disabilities than the mouse  Confirmed  A lack of coherence between the performances measures of the participants and their qualitative judgments

14. 14 Perspectives ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval To include more participants with intellectual disabilities in the experiments To widen the profile of the participants by adding individuals with physical disabilities and people with behavioral problems To conduct experiments with the same experimental design, but applied to other tasks of the dishwashing (e.g., receipting the dirty dishes,...) or to other activities (e.g., room service, laundry).

15. 15 Contact ICDVRAT – 2012 – Laval Olivier Christmann Assistant Professor in Computer Science olivier.christmann@ensam.eu