1. How to improve group performances on collocated synchronous manipulation tasks? Jean Simard, Mehdi Ammi and Anaïs Mayeur CNRS-LIMSI, University of Paris-Sud XI, France @limsi.fr Contexte With recent advances in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and the decrease of communication delays between remote sites, several new applications presenting coupled interactions in Collaborative Virtual Environments (CVE) were explored (Basdogan et al. 2000), (Sallnas et al. 2000) (Chan et al. 2008). Among the advantages of these environments, the global workload can be shared between the involved participants through different strategies. We propose in this study the identification of some important factors aiming to improve sharing tasks presenting closely coupled interactions.” Objectives Identify and analyze of group dynamics (Tuckman 1965) according several working conditions Analyze the evolution of working efficiency accourding the number of partners (pair vs group) for a constant number of resources (manipulation tools). Study the role of brainstorming for the group structuration and for the limitation of conflicts Task Participants are asked to interactively deform molecule structures with haptic tools. The target molecule is displayed on the same view as the deformed molecule (see Figure 1). Haptic tools allow the user to select and apply a force on atoms. Experimental design VMD (visualization), NAMD (simulation), IMD (connect visualization with simulation), VRPN (tools connection), OpenHaptics®. 4 PHANToM Omni SensAble® (3 DoF) connected to 4 computers through VRPN. -4 tug tools: to deformed the molecule (private tool). -No tool to change the point-of-view. Participants have a shared view on a large screen display (see Figure 2 and 3). Results Time (see Figure 4) Pair: increase of completion time with brainstorming [decrease of 13 % with χ2(1) = 0.224, p = 0.636] Group: decrease of completion time with brainstorming [decrease of 69 % with χ2(1) = 3, p = 0.083] Selection frequency (see Figure 5) Pair: increase of selection number with brainstorming [decrease of 9 % with χ2(1) = 0.893, p = 0.345] Group: decrease of selection number with brainstorming [decrease of 54 % with χ2(1) = 5.333, p = 0.021] Number of verbal communications (see Figure 6) Pair: increase of communications with brainstorming [increase of 6 %] Group: decrease of communications with brainstorming [decrease of 50 %] Analysis A great number of interactions and coordination conflicts in groups (see Figure 7) The brainstorming step limits coordination conflicts The brainstorming step is only useful for the beginning of the task The collaboration could be efficient with some partners and come into conflicts with other partners. The brainstorming step allow the users to know the role and actions of each other partners and avoid conflicts. Conclusion Collaborative monomanual work produces better performances than working in pairs with bimanual configuration The brainstorming grealty improves performances of groups but is not useful for pairs The brainstorming step enables the regulation of verbal communications A group needs a leader Perspectives Use of collaborative metaphors to improve the coordination Experiments with experts users (biologists, modeler…) Introduction of efficient group structures References Basdogan C., Ho C.-H., Srinivasan M. A., Slater M.: An experimental study on the role of touch in shared virtual environments. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction 7, 4 (dec. 2000), 443–460. Chan A., MacLean K., McGrenere J.: Designing haptic icons to support collaborative turn-taking. International Journal Human-Computer Studies 66 (may 2008), 333– 355. Sallnäs E.-L., Rassmus-Gröhn K., Sjöström C.: Supporting presence in collaborative environments by haptic force feedback. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction 7, 4 (dec. 2000), 461–476. Tuckman B.: Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin 63, 6 (jun. 1965), 384–399. Figure 1. Illustration of the task with target molecule Shared view Haptic tools Supervisor Computers Figure 2. Schema of the experimental platform Shared view Haptic tools Figure 3. Photo of the experimental platform (4 users) Figure 4. Completion time for pairs and groupsFigure 5. Selection frequency for pairs and groupsFigure 6. Verbal communications for pairs and groups Subject 1 Subject 2 Pair: 1 possibility Subject 2 Subject 1Subject 3 Subject 4 Group: 6 possibilities Figure 7. Number of possible conflicts in collaboration