Chapter 4 90 environment of a VR training simulator provides a realistic and immersive training environment, yet the occurrence of cybersickness also has to be considered, particularly compared to a 2D simulator where these appear much less (Naqvi et al., 2013). Although differences between the two systems exist in terms of physical training responses and sense of presence, both virtual training simulators provoked psychological training responses similar to responses found in studies of real-life training (VR provoking higher levels without a pain stimulus; addition of a pain stimulus to VirTra could match the VR levels; Nieuwenhuys et al., 2015; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009). Conclusively, both systems, due to their inherent technological differences, elicit different training responses and sense of presence experiences. A virtual training simulator may therefore be selected based on the training goal. For instance, for trainings that aim to elicit high levels of physical training responses and require a high level of immersion, a VR system appears most fitting. For a training that requires little movement, high levels of psychological training responses, and little negative effects, a VirTra simulator (with a pain stimulus) may better support the training goal. The current study has limitations. First, the factor of pain stimulus was a between-subjects factor, with one group of participants doing the scenarios without and one group with a pain stimulus. While we assigned participants to the pain stimulus condition randomly, a stronger design for such a factor would be to have without and with pain stimulus as a within-subject factor, implying an intra- rather than inter-person comparison of the experience of pain. Statistically, a between-subjects factor involves relatively larger standard deviations, making it more difficult to find significant differences. Second, because the training schedule of the police was arranged in such a way that participants first completed VR training followed by VirTra training, it is possible that an order effect may have influenced the results. Lastly, the design of the training scenarios in VR and VirTra training did not allow us to balance the number of hits that participants experienced during the trainings with the pain stimulus. Thus, our results provide limited insights into the influence of applying a pain stimulus in VR training (as only 8% of participants received a pain stimulus in response to getting hit by an opponent). In conclusion, the use of a pain stimulus may have a place in virtual simulation training, particularly in situations where the experience of a pain stimulus is likely and suitable and when virtual simulation training without a pain stimulus elicits relatively low levels of stress. For virtual simulation training that already elicits representative levels of stress, the addition of a pain stimulus seems less efficacious, at least in terms of increasing stress, mental effort, and presence. In real-life training, the inclusion of a physical threat to an opponent appears to influence the behavioural responses of police officers like adjusting the posture to avoid getting hit, reacting faster, and blinking more often (Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2010). These behaviours
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw