Virtual Reality, Autostereoscopy, and Physical Models for Learning Anatomy: Performance Comparisons

被引:0
|
作者
Lohit, Simran
Reis, Isabella R.
Ives, Rowan
Chan, Sachi
Touliopoulos, Evangelea
Sinha, Sakshi
Nehru, Amit
DeYoung, Veronica
Mitchell, Josh P.
Brewer-Deluce, Danielle
Sonnadara, Ranil
Wainman, Bruce C.
机构
[1] Education Program in Anatomy, McMaster University, ONHamilton
[2] Bachelor of Health Sciences (Honours) Program, McMaster University, ONHamilton
[3] School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, ON
[4] Department of Surgery, McMaster University, ONHamilton
[5] Compute Ontario, ON, Toronto
[6] Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, ONHamilton
来源
FASEB JOURNAL | 2022年 / 36卷
关键词
D O I
10.1096/fasebj.2022.36.S1.R5777
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学]; Q7 [分子生物学];
学科分类号
071010 ; 081704 ;
摘要
INTRODUCTION: Traditional anatomical education relies on textbooks, physical models, and cadaveric specimens. Advances in technology have provided other display modalities including virtual reality (VR), and autostereoscopic displays. VR uses head-mounted displays (HMDs) for an interactive experience and autostereoscopic screens, like AlioscopyTM , offer a stereoscopic but HMD-free environment. Current research shows contradictory results on the efficacy of VR compared to physical models, and there appears to be no data on the efficacy of autostereoscopic displays in learning anatomy. The purpose of this study is to determine whether VR, AlioscopyTM , or physical models yield the best performance for anatomical education. METHODS: Students at McMaster University without prior anatomy training will learn nominal skeletal anatomy in three different modalities: VR (Oculus Quest 2TM ), AlioscopyTM , or a physical 3D-printed bone model. Each of the environments will be as identical as possible (i.e, the VR environment is a rendering of the exact room and set-up used for testing the physical bone models). Participants will be randomized to one of three interventions where they will study ten bony landmarks on either the human hemipelvis, zygomatic bone, or calcaneus in a distinct modality. Participants will be seated and use an XboxTM controller to rotate the bone along the vertical axis of rotation. After four minutes, an untimed, recognition-based test will be administered, where participants will be given a 3D-printed bone identical to the one used in the learning phase, with randomized landmarks and word bank of landmarks learnt. Performance will be evaluated based on landmarks correctly identified on the recognition-based test. RESULTS: Based on the current literature, we hypothesize that the physical models will be a superior learning environment compared to the VR environment. However, significant improvements in the HMD of the Oculus Quest 2 may have ameliorated previous issues with the VR environment. There is no data available on the efficacy of AlioscopyTM and while the absence of an HMD is appealing, its narrow viewing angle compared to the immersive VR environment may be problematic. CONCLUSION: With the push to increase accessibility and decrease costs associated with anatomical education with the help of digital modalities, the findings from this study are critical to informing teaching practices, and technology use in anatomy education. © FASEB.
引用
收藏
页数:2
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Does Familiarization with Virtual Reality Improve Anatomy Learning in a Virtual Reality Environment?
    Gill, Jaskaran
    Aggarwal, Akanksha
    Birk, Sapriya
    Hass, Katrina
    Mitchell, Josh
    Fenesi, Barbara
    Wainman, Bruce
    FASEB JOURNAL, 2019, 33
  • [2] RepliExplore: coupling physical and virtual anatomy models
    Mathias Seitel
    Lena Maier-Hein
    Alexander Seitel
    Alfred M. Franz
    Hannes Kenngott
    Raffaele De Simone
    Ivo Wolf
    Hans-Peter Meinzer
    International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2009, 4 : 417 - 424
  • [3] RepliExplore: coupling physical and virtual anatomy models
    Seitel, Mathias
    Maier-Hein, Lena
    Seitel, Alexander
    Franz, Alfred M.
    Kenngott, Hannes
    De Simone, Raffaele
    Wolf, Ivo
    Meinzer, Hans-Peter
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOLOGY AND SURGERY, 2009, 4 (05) : 417 - 424
  • [4] Embodied Cognition and Virtual Reality in Learning to Visualize Anatomy
    Jang, Susan
    Black, John B.
    Jyung, Robert W.
    COGNITION IN FLUX, 2010, : 2326 - 2331
  • [5] INFLUENCE OF VIRTUAL REALITY TOOLS ON HUMAN ANATOMY LEARNING
    Korniienko, Inokentii A.
    Barchi, Beata, V
    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES AND LEARNING TOOLS, 2020, 77 (03) : 66 - 75
  • [6] Enriching Anatomy Learning with Virtual Reality Clinical Scenarios
    Hasan, Farah Z.
    McBride, Jennifer
    Mitchell, Josh P.
    Anwarzi, Deewa
    Sonnadara, Ranil R.
    Wainman, Bruce C.
    FASEB JOURNAL, 2022, 36
  • [7] Physical Models and Virtual Reality Simulators: in Otolaryngology
    Javia, Luv
    Sardesai, Maya G.
    OTOLARYNGOLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2017, 50 (05) : 875 - +
  • [8] Physical collections, virtual classes: creating digital access to anatomy models for remote learning
    McCallum, Daniel
    Burt-Nicholas, Laura
    JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2021, 109 (04) : 686 - 687
  • [9] Supplementing physical solid state models with virtual reality models
    Wiediger, Susan
    Kiraz, Tugce
    Robinson, Michael
    Tammen, Kaitlyn
    Towne, Rachel
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2019, 258
  • [10] Characteristics of a Virtual Reality scenario for anatomy learning: A literature review
    Gonzalez, Tamara
    Ibeas, Consuelo
    Gravert, Ignacio
    Leon, Andres
    Rojas, Marcos
    SPANISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2022, 3 (03):