Use of mixed reality in ergonomics: an exploratory review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18041/2322-634X/rcso.2.11849Keywords:
mixed reality, ergonomics, workplace environments, workstationsAbstract
Introduction: The scope of using mixed reality (MR) as a predictive tool for ergonomics is broad and promising, with the potential to revolutionize how we predict and improve ergonomic conditions in various workplaces.
Objective: To examine the current state of MR as a predictive tool for ergonomics in workplace environments.
Methods: An exploratory review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines consulting databases such as Scopus, Science Direct, Medline, and others. Studies addressing the interaction of workers with their work environment through MR were included.
Results: Sixteen relevant studies were selected from 2,575 initial searches. MR is predominantly used in training, assembly operations, and remote assistance, with less than 10% of the studies focusing on ergonomics.
Conclusions: MR has the potential to significantly improve workplace ergonomics by enhancing worker safety, productivity, and well-being. However, technical and implementation challenges still need to be addressed.
Downloads
References
1. Riegler A, Riener A, Holzmann C. A research agenda for mixed reality in automated vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. New York: ACM; 2020. p. 119-131. Doi: 10.1145/3428361.3428390
2. Reif R, Günthner WA, Schwerdtfeger B, Klinker G. Evaluation of a mixed reality supported picking system under practical conditions. Computer Graphics Forum. 2010; 29(1): 2-12. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2009.01538.x
3. Bruno F, Barbieri L, Muzzupappa M. A mixed reality system for the ergonomic assessment of industrial workstations. Int J Interact Des Manuf. 2020; 14(3): 859-869. Doi: 10.1007/s12008-020-00684-x
4. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13(3): 141-6. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050
5. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1): 19-32. Doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616
6. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7): 467-473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850.
7. Bottani E, Vignali G. Augmented reality technology in the manufacturing industry: A review of the last decade. IISE Trans. 2019; 51(3): 284-310. DOI: 10.1080/24725854.2018.1493244
8. Cardenas-Robledo A, Hernández-Uribe Ó, Reta C, Cantoral-Ceballos JA. Extended reality applications in industry 4.0 A systematic literature review. Telematics Informatics. 2022; 73: 101863
9. Rejeb A, Keogh JG, Treiblmaier, Fosso WS, Treiblmaier H. The potentials of augmented reality in supply chain management: a state-of-the-art review. Management Review Quarterly. 2021; 71: 819-856. Doi: 10.1007/s11301-020-00201-w.
10. Sun X, Houssin R, Renaud J, Gardoni M. A review of methodologies for integrating human factors and ergonomics in engineering design. Int J Prod Res. 2019; 57(15-16): 4961-4976. Doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1492161
11. Kacerová I, Kubr J, Horejsí P, Kleinová J. Ergonomic design of a workplace using virtual reality and a motion capture suit. Appl Sci. 2022;12(4): 2150. Doi: 10.3390/app12042150
12. Reif R, Günthner WA, Schwerdtfeger B, Klinker G. Evaluation of a mixed reality supported picking system under practical conditions. Computer Graphics Forum. 2010; 29(1): 2-12. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8659.2009.01538.x
13. Caputo F, Greco A, Fera M, Macchiaroli R. Workplace design ergonomic validation based on multiple human factors assessment methods and simulation. Prod Manuf Res. 2019; 7(1): 195-222. Doi: 10.1080/21693277.2019.1616631
14. Kwon Y, Dwivedi A, McDaid AJ, Liarokapis M. Electromyography-based decoding of dexterous, in hand manipulation of objects: Comparing task execution in real world and virtual reality. IEEE Access. 2021; 9: 37297-37310. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3062364
15. Vovk A, Wild F, Guest W, Kuula T. Simulator sickness in augmented reality training using the Microsoft HoloLens. CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Paper No.: 209, Pp 1-9; 2018. Doi: 10.1145/3173574.3173783
16. Shen R, Weng D, Chen S, Guo J, Fang H. Mental fatigue of long-term office tasks in a virtual environment. 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). Beijing, China; 2019. pp. 124-127, doi: 10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2019.00-65.
17. Wallmyr M, Sitompul TA, Holstein T, Lindell R. Evaluating mixed reality notifications to support excavator operator awareness. In: Lamas D, Loizides F, Nacke L, Petrie H, Winckler M, et al. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019. INTERACT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11746. Springer, Cham. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-29381-9_44.
18. Kim J, Bayro A, Lee J, Soltis I, Kim M, Jeong H, Yeo WH. Mixed reality-integrated soft wearable biosensing glove for manipulating objects. Biosensors Bioelectron X. 2023; 14: 100343. Doi: 10.1016/j.biosx.2023.100343
19. Atheer Inc. Industrial remote AR assistance: enterprise applications and case studies. Industry White Paper. Atheer Inc; 2023.
20. Liu X, Wang L, Zhang Y. Use of a mixed-reality creative environment in design ergonomics for conceived workstation assessment. Advanced Engineering Informatics. 2024;60:102346.
21. Hu X, Chen J, Wang F. Wearables and mixed reality in applied ergonomics. In: International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer; 2023. p. 89-105
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Colombiana de Salud Ocupacional
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
