A comparison of virtual reality anatomy models to prosections in station-based anatomy teaching

IF 5.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Geetika Ail, Frances Freer, Chui Shan Chan, Melissa Jones, John Broad, Gian Paulo Canale, Pedro Elston, Jessica Leeney, Paula Vickerton
{"title":"A comparison of virtual reality anatomy models to prosections in station-based anatomy teaching","authors":"Geetika Ail,&nbsp;Frances Freer,&nbsp;Chui Shan Chan,&nbsp;Melissa Jones,&nbsp;John Broad,&nbsp;Gian Paulo Canale,&nbsp;Pedro Elston,&nbsp;Jessica Leeney,&nbsp;Paula Vickerton","doi":"10.1002/ase.2419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Immersive virtual reality (i-VR) is a powerful tool that can be used to explore virtual models in three dimensions. It could therefore be a valuable tool to supplement anatomical teaching by providing opportunities to explore spatial anatomical relationships in a virtual environment. However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature as to its effectiveness as a teaching modality when compared to the use of cadaveric material. The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness of i-VR in facilitating understanding of different anatomical regions when compared with cadaveric prosections for a cohort of first- and second-year undergraduate medical students. Students (<i>n</i> = 92) enrolled in the MBBS program at Queen Mary University of London undertook an assessment, answering questions using either Oculus i-VR headsets, the Human Anatomy VR™ application, or prosection materials. Utilizing ANOVA with Sidak's multiple comparison test, we found no significant difference between prosections and i-VR scores in the abdomen (<i>p</i> = 0.6745), upper limb (<i>p</i> = 0.8557), or lower limb groups (<i>p</i> = 0.9973), suggesting that i-VR may be a viable alternative to prosections in these regions. However, students scored significantly higher when using prosections when compared to i-VR for the thoracic region (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001). This may be due to a greater need for visuospatial understanding of 3D relationships when viewing anatomical cavities, which is challenged by a virtual environment. Our study supports the use of i-VR in anatomical teaching but highlights that there is significant variation in the efficacy of this tool for the study of different anatomical regions.</p>","PeriodicalId":124,"journal":{"name":"Anatomical Sciences Education","volume":"17 4","pages":"763-769"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ase.2419","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomical Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ase.2419","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Immersive virtual reality (i-VR) is a powerful tool that can be used to explore virtual models in three dimensions. It could therefore be a valuable tool to supplement anatomical teaching by providing opportunities to explore spatial anatomical relationships in a virtual environment. However, there is a lack of consensus in the literature as to its effectiveness as a teaching modality when compared to the use of cadaveric material. The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness of i-VR in facilitating understanding of different anatomical regions when compared with cadaveric prosections for a cohort of first- and second-year undergraduate medical students. Students (n = 92) enrolled in the MBBS program at Queen Mary University of London undertook an assessment, answering questions using either Oculus i-VR headsets, the Human Anatomy VR™ application, or prosection materials. Utilizing ANOVA with Sidak's multiple comparison test, we found no significant difference between prosections and i-VR scores in the abdomen (p = 0.6745), upper limb (p = 0.8557), or lower limb groups (p = 0.9973), suggesting that i-VR may be a viable alternative to prosections in these regions. However, students scored significantly higher when using prosections when compared to i-VR for the thoracic region (p < 0.0001). This may be due to a greater need for visuospatial understanding of 3D relationships when viewing anatomical cavities, which is challenged by a virtual environment. Our study supports the use of i-VR in anatomical teaching but highlights that there is significant variation in the efficacy of this tool for the study of different anatomical regions.

Abstract Image

虚拟现实解剖模型与基于工作站的解剖教学中的剖面图比较
沉浸式虚拟现实(i-VR)是一种可用于探索三维虚拟模型的强大工具。因此,它可以成为辅助解剖学教学的重要工具,提供在虚拟环境中探索空间解剖关系的机会。然而,与使用尸体材料相比,虚拟模型作为一种教学模式的有效性在文献中还缺乏共识。我们研究的目的是比较 i-VR与尸体解剖相比,在促进医科一年级和二年级本科生理解不同解剖区域方面的效果。就读于伦敦玛丽女王大学医学学士学位课程的学生(n = 92)接受了一项评估,他们使用 Oculus i-VR 头显、人体解剖 VR™ 应用程序或尸体解剖材料回答问题。通过方差分析和西达克多重比较测试,我们发现在腹部(p = 0.6745)、上肢(p = 0.8557)或下肢组(p = 0.9973),剖面图和 i-VR 的得分没有显著差异,这表明在这些区域,i-VR 可能是剖面图的可行替代品。然而,在胸部区域,与 i-VR 相比,学生使用 Prosections 的得分明显更高(p < 0.0001)。这可能是由于在观察解剖腔时更需要对三维关系的视觉空间理解,而虚拟环境对这一理解提出了挑战。我们的研究支持在解剖学教学中使用 i-VR,但强调了这一工具在不同解剖区域的研究效果存在显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anatomical Sciences Education
Anatomical Sciences Education Anatomy/education-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
39.70%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Anatomical Sciences Education, affiliated with the American Association for Anatomy, serves as an international platform for sharing ideas, innovations, and research related to education in anatomical sciences. Covering gross anatomy, embryology, histology, and neurosciences, the journal addresses education at various levels, including undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, allied health, medical (both allopathic and osteopathic), and dental. It fosters collaboration and discussion in the field of anatomical sciences education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信