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

Poster Board Number: C74
Introduction: AAA has separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – 10:15 am – 11:15 am
Even poster #s – 11:15 am – 12:15 pm

Simran Lohit (McMaster University, McMaster University), Isabella Reis (McMaster University, McMaster University), Rowan Ives (McMaster University, McMaster University), Sachi Chan (McMaster University, McMaster University), Evangelea Touliopoulos (McMaster University, McMaster University), Sakshi Sinha (McMaster University, McMaster University), Amit Nehru (McMaster University), Veronica DeYoung (McMaster University), Josh Mitchell (McMaster University), Danielle Brewer-Deluce (University of Western Ontario), Ranil Sonnadara (McMaster University, Compute Ontario), Bruce Wainman (McMaster University, McMaster University)

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, Alioscopy TM, 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.

None.