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
  • [41] Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments
    Pan, ZG
    Cheok, AD
    Yang, HW
    Zhu, JJ
    Shi, JY
    COMPUTERS & GRAPHICS-UK, 2006, 30 (01): : 20 - 28
  • [42] Comparing the effectiveness of Virtual Reality and Physical Models in Undergraduate Orthopaedic Education
    Wilson, G.
    Bhaskar, J.
    Kokotkin, Il.
    Zargaran, A.
    Trompeter, A.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2019, 106 : 7 - 7
  • [43] LEARNING ANATOMY WITH AUGMENTED REALITY
    Norgard, C.
    O'Neill, L.
    Nielsen, K. G.
    Juul, S. H.
    Chemnitz, J.
    EDULEARN18: 10TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION AND NEW LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, 2018, : 1413 - 1422
  • [44] Developing 3D models using photogrammetry for virtual reality training in anatomy
    Krause, Kayla J.
    Mullins, Drew D.
    Kist, Madison N.
    Goldman, Evan M.
    ANATOMICAL SCIENCES EDUCATION, 2023, 16 (06) : 1033 - 1040
  • [45] Learning with virtual reality
    Pekkola, Samuli, 2000, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, Geneve-15, Switzerland (10): : 1 - 4
  • [46] Evaluating Cybersickness in Virtual 3D Models for Anatomy Learning
    Ives, Rowan
    Lohit, Simran
    Touliopoulos, Evangelea
    Reis, Isabella R.
    Chan, Sachi
    Sinha, Sakshi
    Nehru, Amit
    DeYoung, Veronica
    Mitchell, Josh P.
    Brewer-Deluce, Danielle
    Sonnadara, Ranil
    Wainman, Bruce C.
    FASEB JOURNAL, 2022, 36
  • [47] Immersive Anatomy Atlas-Empirical Study Investigating the Usability of a Virtual Reality Environment as a Learning Tool for Anatomy
    Weyhe, Dirk
    Uslar, Verena
    Weyhe, Felix
    Kaluschke, Maximilian
    Zachmann, Gabriel
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2018, 5
  • [48] Mapping Virtual and Physical Reality
    Sun, Qi
    Wei, Li-Yi
    Kaufman, Arie
    ACM TRANSACTIONS ON GRAPHICS, 2016, 35 (04):
  • [49] Virtual Reality in Physical Mirrors
    Woo, Seunghyun
    Aoki, Takafumi
    Mitake, Hironori
    Hashimoto, Naoki
    Sato, Makoto
    IEEE VIRTUAL REALITY 2009, PROCEEDINGS, 2009, : 239 - 240
  • [50] Virtual reality in physical rehabilitation
    Meneghini, A
    CATCHING THE FUTURE: WOMEN AND MEN IN GLOBAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, : 166 - 169