Mafalda Pereira
Back to workProject 06 · Case study 06 of 06

Evidence strategy · Human factors

Immersive training evidence framework

I developed and validated an evidence base for comparing haptic technologies in immersive training, translating a fragmented landscape into clear research, safety and evaluation criteria.

My role
Created the core bibliography and technology benchmark used by an AI-assisted research workflow, then reviewed, corrected and validated the material against scientific literature, primary documentation and standards.
Study scope
Confidential cross-functional research and development initiative
Methods
Literature review · Technology benchmark · Standards review · Evaluation framework

The research question

Which technology capabilities were sufficiently supported to inform research and prototyping, and what still needed to be tested?

Vendor specifications, scientific findings and standards could not be treated as equivalent evidence. I separated verified capabilities from claims about perceptual fidelity, learning, safety and real-world usefulness.

How I approached it

From question to evidence

  1. 01 / Map

    Organise a fragmented technology landscape

    I compared haptic approaches by operating principle, feedback capability, integration requirements, constraints and potential training use.

  2. 02 / Verify

    Test every important claim against its source

    I checked technical claims, corrected outdated or mismatched references and distinguished what a sensor measures from what might only be inferred.

  3. 03 / Operationalise

    Turn the review into a staged evaluation framework

    I translated the evidence into research requirements covering characterisation, formative work, controlled comparison, representative scenarios, safety and reporting.

How I organised the evidence

Three evidence layers kept deliberately separate

The framework made it clear whether a statement came from independent research, documented system capability or a question still requiring validation.

Recreated analysis structure
  1. 01

    Scientific evidence

    What independent research supported

    Evidence related to perception, motor learning, usability, physiology, safety, retention and transfer.

  2. 02

    Technical evidence

    What the system could demonstrably do

    Documented capabilities, operating parameters, integration constraints and known limitations.

  3. 03

    Validation needs

    What still required independent testing

    Questions requiring bench characterisation, participant research or evaluation in a representative scenario.

What I delivered

A traceable review, benchmark and staged evaluation framework

I delivered a consolidated bibliography, comparative technology benchmark and evaluation framework in which each major claim was linked to its source and the next level of evidence required.