Impact of Immersive and Non-Immersive Displays on User Performance in a Haptic-Enabled Virtual Reality Platform

This study evaluates the impact of immersive (Head-Mounted Display, HMD) and non-immersive (2D conventional monitor) visual displays on user performance in a haptic-enabled virtual reality (VR) platform. Fourteen healthy participants completed three interactive tasks—Pick and place (P&P), Canvas, and Box and Block Test (BBT)—under both display conditions. A counterbalanced design was employed to minimize order effects. Statistical analysis revealed that display type significantly influenced performance in the P&P task (<tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathbf{p}=\mathbf{0. 0 0 3}$</tex>), where users performed better with the HMD, likely due to enhanced depth perception. However, no significant differences were observed in Canvas (<tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathbf{p}=0.258$</tex>) or BBT (<tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathbf{p}=0.634$</tex>), where depth perception plays a less critical role. Despite its potential effectiveness for rehabilitation, the platform does have limitations, such as the constrained workspace of the Touch <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">${ }^{T M}$</tex> haptic device. Future studies should involve clinical populations to evaluate its therapeutic potential. These findings underscore the influence of display modality on VR-based tasks and its implications for humancomputer interaction, particularly in rehabilitation contexts.