The reproduction and simulation of workplaces, and the analysis of body postures during work processes, are parts of ergonomic risk assessments. A commercial virtual reality (VR) system offers the possibility to model complex work scenarios as virtual mock-ups and to evaluate their ergonomic designs by analyzing motion behavior while performing work processes. In this study a VR tracking sensor system (HTC Vive tracker) combined with an inverse kinematic model (Final IK) was compared with a marker-based optical motion capture system (Qualisys). Marker-based optical motion capture systems are considered the gold standard for motion analysis. Therefore, Qualisys was used as the ground truth in this study. The research question to be answered was how accurately the HTC Vive System combined with Final IK can measure joint angles used for ergonomic evaluation. Twenty-six subjects were observed simultaneously with both tracking systems while performing 20 defined movements. Sixteen joint angles were analyzed. Joint angle deviations between $\pm 6^{\circ }$ and $\pm {42}^{\circ }$ were identified. These high deviations must be considered in ergonomic risk assessments when using a VR system. The results show that commercial low-budget tracking systems have the potential to map joint angles. Nevertheless, substantial weaknesses and inaccuracies in some body regions must be taken into account. Recommendations are provided to improve tracking accuracy and avoid systematic errors.

Locomotor training based in virtual reality (VR) is promising for motor skill learning, with transfer of VR skills in turn required to benefit daily life locomotion. This study aimed to assess whether VR-adapted obstacle avoidance can be transferred to a physical obstacle and whether such transfer is retained after 1 week. Thirty-two young adults were randomly divided between two groups. A control group (CG) merely walked on a treadmill and an intervention group (IG) trained crossing 50 suddenly-appearing virtual obstacles. Both groups crossed three physical obstacles (transfer task) immediately after training (T1) and 1 week later (T2, transfer retention). Repeated practice in VR led to a decrease in toe clearance along with greater ankle plantarflexion and knee extension. IG participants crossed physical obstacles with a lower toe clearance compared to CG but revealed significantly higher values compared to the VR condition. VR adaptation was fully retained over 1 week. For physical obstacle avoidance there were differences between toe clearance of the third obstacle at T1 and the first obstacle at T2, indicating only partial transfer retention. We suggest that perception–action coupling, and thus sensorimotor coordination, may differ between VR and the physical world, potentially limiting retained transfer between conditions.

Use of head-mounted displays (HMDs) and hand-held displays (HHDs) may affect the effectiveness of stability control mechanisms and impair resistance to falls. This study aimed to examine whether the ability to control stability during locomotion is diminished while using HMDs and HHDs. Fourteen healthy adults (21–46 years) were assessed under single-task (no display) and dual-task (spatial 2-n-back presented on the HMD or the HHD) conditions while performing various locomotor tasks. An optical motion capture system and two force plates were used to assess locomotor stability using an inverted pendulum model. For perturbed standing, 57% of the participants were not able to maintain stability by counter-rotation actions when using either display, compared to the single-task condition. Furthermore, around 80% of participants (dual-task) compared to 50% (single-task) showed a negative margin of stability (i.e., an unstable body configuration) during recovery for perturbed walking due to a diminished ability to increase their base of support effectively. However, no evidence was found for HMDs or HHDs affecting stability during unperturbed locomotion. In conclusion, additional cognitive resources required for dual-tasking, using either display, are suggested to result in delayed response execution for perturbed standing and walking, consequently diminishing participants’ ability to use stability control mechanisms effectively and increasing the risk of falls.