prototypes can also be used for project reviews. In this context, different professions meet around a virtual environment and make design decisions on the designed product. For example, in the aeronautics industry, project reviews bring together project managers and the future fitters who will assemble the aerostructure, around virtual prototypes of manufacturing workstations (Sagnier et al. 2019). Finally, it is also possible to use the virtual prototype to carry out ergonomic studies of the workstations. For example, Bernard et al. (2019) simulated helicopter maintenance operations, in order to collect data on the operators’ postures, the biomechanical constraints to which they were subjected, or their mental load.
Virtual reality also allows for virtual assemblies, that is, simulating the assembly of parts of an object (Seth et al. 2011). In this way, we can decide on the assembly sequence of the different parts, determine the physical and mechanical characteristics of the parts, choose the tools to be used and identify factors that may affect the quality of the assembly (Mujber et al. 2004). For example, Jayraman et al. (1997) developed VADE (Virtual Assembly Design Environment), an immersive virtual environment for virtual assembly. The virtual reality system used consists of a head-mounted display and a data glove to detect the user’s hand movements. The system integrates data from CAD (Computer Aided Design) software on tolerances, part location, part orientation, etc. In the virtual environment, the user assembles or disassembles the different parts of an object, perceives the collisions of the parts and can record a trajectory, or reject it.
As for the use of virtual reality in industry training, this mainly concerns maintenance and assembly. For example, the study by Abate et al. (2009) presents a head-mounted display application with a force feedback exoskeleton for maintenance training in the aerospace industry. In this study, users were required to perform eight routine maintenance tasks. Similarly, Stork et al. (2012) propose a semi-immersive system with a wide screen and natural interactions (to grasp objects with the hands) for assembly training in the automotive industry.
Virtual reality is also used to train operators in risk prevention. These applications are developing particularly in the construction sector. For example, Sacks et al. (2013) compared the effectiveness of safety training given by (1) a classroom trainer with a slide show with (2) training involving an immersive virtual environment used alternately by the trainer and the learners. The virtual reality system included a projection screen that allowed stereoscopic vision. The virtual environment represented a construction site. Learners were asked to share their general knowledge of the construction industry, identify risks in the situations presented and explain the behaviors to be adopted. In the same vein, the study by Zhao and Lucas (2015) presented a non-immersive virtual environment to sensitize workers to electrical risks. It allowed users to detect risks while navigating on a construction site. The virtual environment provided information to users on risks and on the behaviors to adopt.
3.6. Conclusion
Virtual reality is one of the technologies that is implemented today and that will continue to be implemented in the coming years in professional contexts. In this chapter, we have enlightened the reader on what virtual reality is and on the devices that virtual reality systems mobilize. We have also summarized its main applications, in general and more specifically in industry.
Most of the studies on the use of this technology, including the majority of those mentioned above, adopt technocentric approaches (or a Technology Driver approach, i.e. developing products that then seek to gain acceptance; Davies and Buisine 2017). Studies that adopt this approach describe only the technical characteristics of a virtual reality system or virtual environment, as well as their main objectives (training operators to identify risks, conducting studies on the interaction of a customer with a product, etc.). However, perhaps because the implementation of this type of technology in professional contexts is not democratized, or because they are only exceptionally integrated into employees’ activities, few studies have been carried out on their impact on work. However, their development raises questions about their suitability for users (usefulness, usability, acceptance), the changes they may bring about in the content of activities, as well as the health and well-being of employees. For these reasons, a user and activity-centered (anthropocentric) approach must be deployed to co-construct acceptable modalities for the deployment and adoption of these new immersive work environments.
3.7. References
Abate, A.F., Guida, M., Leoncini, P., Nappi, M., and Ricciardi, S. (2009). A haptic-based approach to virtual training for aerospace industry. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 20(5), 318–325.
Aromaa, S. and Väänänen, K. (2016). Suitability of virtual prototypes to support human factors/ergonomics evaluation during the design. Applied Ergonomics, 56, 11–18.
Benali-Koudja, M. and Hafez, M. (2006). Les interfaces tactiles. In Le traité de la réalité virtuelle, Fuchs, P. and Moreau, G. (eds). Les Presses de l’École des Mines de Paris, Paris.
Berg, L.P. and Vance, J.M. (2017). Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: A survey. Virtual Reality, 21(1), 1–17.
Bernard, F., Zare, M., Sagot, J.-C., and Paquin, R. (2019). Using digital and physical simulation to focus on human factors and ergonomics in aviation maintainability. Human Factors, 62(1), 37–54.
Bordegoni, M. and Ferrise, F. (2013). Designing interaction with consumer products in a multisensory virtual reality environment. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 8(1), 51–64.
Bruno, F. and Muzzupappa, M. (2010). Product interface design: A participatory approach based on virtual reality. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 68(5), 254–269.
Burkhardt, J.-M. (2003). Réalité virtuelle et ergonomie : quelques apports réciproques. Le travail humain, 66(1), 65–91.
Coeugnet, S. (2018). Helping older pedestrians navigate unknown environments through vibrotactile guidance instructions. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 816–830.
Davies, M. and Buisine, S. (2017). La culture d’innovation dans les organisations françaises. Technologie et Innovation, 2, 1–12.
tom Dieck, D., tom Dieck, C., Jung, T., Moorhouse, N. (2018). Tourists’ virtual reality adoption: An exploratory study from Lake District National Park. Leisure Studies, 37(4), 371–383.
Direction Générale des Entreprises (2016). Technologies clés 2020 : préparer l’industrie du futur [Online]. Available: https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/politique-et-enjeux/etude-technologies-cles-2020.
Fang, T.Y. (2014). Evaluation of a haptics-based virtual reality temporal bone simulator for anatomy and surgery training. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 113(2), 674–681.
Freeman, D. (2016). Virtual reality in the treatment of persecutory delusions: Randomised controlled experimental study testing how to reduce delusional conviction. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(1), 62–67.
Fuchs, P. (2006). Les interfaces à simulation de mouvement et les interfaces à simulation de climat. In Le traité de la réalité virtuelle, Fuchs, P. and Moreau, G. (eds). Les Presses de l’École des Mines de Paris, Paris.
Fuchs, P. and Mathieu, H. (2011). Location sensors. In Virtual Reality: Concepts and Technologies, Fuchs, P., Moreau, G., and Guitton, P. (eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Ganier, F.,
