{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02765486725663717, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003761061946902655, 'mean_word_length': 5.253112033195021, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Transfer of Training from Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality: A Meta-Analysis Extended Abstract

Introduction Training is required for humans to develop or further their skills. Many vital skills necessitate strict learning protocols and may be expensive and time consuming. So, any advancement in technology or science which might reduce the cost, either financial or temporal, will be of use to many people. For this reason, simulated training has gained acceptance as a means to increase training efficiency. Such training would include any technology utilizing mixed reality (MR), including both augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). These technologies can reduce some of the costs associated with training and can eliminate many risks by placing individuals in a simulation rather than in real-world dangerous situations. However, training in MR does not solve all the problems that plague current training methods. While simulation may be the solution to many issues, it comes with its own set of caveats. One must consider whether mixed reality is in fact an effective medium for training. The most obvious complaint is the applicability of the training to execution of the task in the real world. The principle of encoding specificity indicates that when the learning environment is sufficiently different from the environment where that learning is measured, performance tends to suffer (Tulving & Thomson, 1973). This principle was further explored by Godden and Baddeley (1975) who found that scuba divers who memorized lists of words on dry land recalled those lists better above-rather than below-the surface of the ocean. This parallels many training situations and calls into question whether learning properly transfers between scenarios. One can extend the same caution to training in MR. The situations in which simulation-based training has the most benefit (risky, expensive, or unsafe conditions) also have the highest cost of failure. For these reasons, it is imperative that transfer of training from virtual reality be measured to determine whether the transfer is effective overall. A meta-analysis of the current empirical literature on the subject is a good way to begin to understand the effect of virtual training on performance. Method A literature search was conducted to find all published, peer-reviewed articles on the topic of training transfer from simulationbased training. Search strings included two terms; the primary term having to do with the vehicle of the virtual training and the second having to do with the training transfer outcome. Primary search terms used included “virtual reality,” “VR,” “augmented reality,” “mixed reality,” and “simulation.” Secondary terms included “encoding specificity,” “learning,” and “training.” Articles were accepted for inclusion if they examined training transfer from AR, VR, or MR, or real-world performance after virtual training, as a dependent variable. Articles were also required to meet the following criteria: 1) The article was from a peer-reviewed journal, a conference proceeding, a technical report or a dissertation, 2) The article contained original empirical data, 3) the study used virtual, augmented, or mixed reality training and realworld performance, and, 4) the study’s statistics included enough information to determine an effect size. In all cases, the dependent variable was a performance measure after a simulated training protocol. The associated variables included age of the participants, difficulty of the task, and level of virtual immersiveness, which is here defined as the extent to which the virtual world is fully-realized. In these cases, virtual reality is more virtually immersive than augmented reality, and both are more immersive than an interactive video or a real-world control setting. A subset of the studies where immersiveness was a factor, compared training in a fully immersive virtual reality setting to training in a non-virtual control setting. Results Results, shown in Figure 1, indicate that virtual immersion, both overall and in the VR vs Control Group analysis, had no significant effect on post-training performance, since the associated confidence interval included zero. Additionally, task difficulty and age of participants did not have strong effects on the results of simulation-based training, but too few articles examined these topics for a confidence interval to be established. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting