Search

After just months of simulated training, on January 19, 2019 a 23-year-old E-sports pro-gamer, Enzo Bonito, took to the racetrack and beat Lucas di Grassi, a Formula E and ex-Formula 1 driver with decades of real-world racing experience. This event raised the possibility that practicing in virtual reality can be surprisingly effective for acquiring motor expertise in real-world tasks. Here, we evaluate the potential of virtual reality to serve as a space for training to expert levels in highly complex real-world tasks in time windows much shorter than those required in the real world and at much lower financial cost without the hazards of the real world. We also discuss how VR can also serve as an experimental platform for exploring the science of expertise more generally.

Virtual reality (VR) has garnered much interest as a training environment for motor skill acquisition, including for neurological rehabilitation of upper extremities. While the focus has been on gross upper limb motion, VR applications that involve reaching for, and interacting with, virtual objects are growing. The absence of true haptics in VR when it comes to hand-object interactions raises a fundamentally important question: can haptic-free immersive virtual environments (hf-VEs) support naturalistic coordination of reach-to-grasp movements? This issue has been grossly understudied, and yet is of significant importance in the development and application of VR across a number of sectors. In a previous study (Furmanek et al., J Neuroeng Rehabil 16:78, 2019), we reported that reach-to-grasp movements are similarly coordinated in both the physical environment (PE) and hf-VE. The most noteworthy difference was that the closure phase-which begins at maximum aperture and lasts through the end of the movement-was longer in hf-VE than in PE, suggesting that different control laws might govern the initiation of closure between the two environments. To do so, we reanalyzed data from Furmanek et al. (J Neuroeng Rehabil 16:78, 2019), in which the participants reached to grasp three differently sized physical objects, and matching 3D virtual object renderings, placed at three different locations. Our analysis revealed two key findings pertaining to the initiation of closure in PE and hf-VE. First, the respective control laws governing the initiation of aperture closure in PE and hf-VE both included state estimates of transport velocity and acceleration, supporting a general unified control policy for implementing reach-to-grasp across physical and virtual environments. Second, the aperture was less informative to the control law in hf-VE. We suggest that the latter was likely because transport velocity at closure onset and aperture at closure onset were less independent in hf-VE than in PE, ultimately resulting in an aperture at closure onset having a weaker influence on the initiation of closure. In this way, the excess time and muscular effort needed to actively bring the fingers to a stop at the interface of a virtual object was factored into the control law governing the initiation of closure in hf-VE. Critically, this control law remained applicable, albeit with different weights in hf-VE, despite the absence of terminal haptic feedback and potential perceptual differences.

Background: Virtual reality (VR) offers unprecedented opportunity as a scientific tool to study visuomotor interactions, training, and rehabilitation applications. However, it remains unclear if haptic-free hand-object interactions in a virtual environment (VE) may differ from those performed in the physical environment (PE). We therefore sought to establish if the coordination structure between the transport and grasp components remain similar whether a reach-to-grasp movement is performed in PE and VE., Method: Reach-to-grasp kinematics were examined in 13 healthy right-handed young adults. Subjects were instructed to reach-to-grasp-to-lift three differently sized rectangular objects located at three different distances from the starting position. Object size and location were matched between the two environments. Contact with the virtual objects was based on a custom collision detection algorithm. Differences between the environments were evaluated by comparing movement kinematics of the transport and grasp components., Results: Correlation coefficients, and the slope of the regression lines, between the reach and grasp components were similar for the two environments. Likewise, the kinematic profiles of the transport velocity and grasp aperture were strongly correlated across the two environments. A rmANOVA further identified some similarities and differences in the movement kinematics between the two environments - most prominently that the closure phase of reach-to-grasp movement was prolonged when movements were performed in VE., Conclusions: Reach-to-grasp movement patterns performed in a VE showed both similarities and specific differences compared to those performed in PE. Additionally, we demonstrate a novel approach for parsing the reach-to-grasp movement into three phases- initiation, shaping, closure- based on established kinematic variables, and demonstrate that the differences in performance between the environments are attributed to the closure phase. We discuss this in the context of how collision detection parameters may modify hand-object interactions in VE. Our study shows that haptic-free VE may be a useful platform to study reach-to-grasp movements, with potential implications for haptic-free VR in neurorehabilitation.