Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based (Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education

Consumer-grade virtual reality has recently become available for both desktop and mobile platforms and may redefine the way that students learn. However, the decision regarding which device to utilise within a curriculum is unclear. Desktop-based VR has considerably higher setup costs involved, whereas mobile-based VR cannot produce the quality of environment due to its limited processing power. This study aimed to compare performance in an anatomical knowledge test between two virtual reality headsets, the Oculus Rift and Gear VR, as well as to investigate student perceptions and adverse health effects experienced from their use. An identical lesson on spine anatomy was presented to subjects using either the Oculus Rift or Gear VR, with no significant differences observed in test scores from participants using either device, with both groups answering 60% of the questions correctly. However, 40% of participants experienced significantly higher rates of nausea and blurred vision when using the Gear VR ( P < 0.05). It was established that the more cost effective mobile-based VR was just as suitable for teaching isolated-systems than the more expensive desktop-based VR. These outcomes show great promise for the effective use of mobile-based virtual reality devices in medical and health science education.

[1]  S. Daniel,et al.  Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer‐generated three‐dimensional anatomical ear model , 2006, Medical education.

[2]  Luca Chittaro,et al.  Web3D technologies in learning, education and training: Motivations, issues, opportunities , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Chris Dede,et al.  Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning , 2009 .

[4]  Barbara J. Daley,et al.  CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING THEORY TO WEB-BASED COURSE DESIGN: AN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN APPROACH , 2013 .

[5]  Hans-Peter Meinzer,et al.  Teaching on Three-Dimensional Presentation Does Not Improve the Understanding of According CT Images: A Randomized Controlled Study , 2012, Teaching and learning in medicine.

[6]  Nikos Papadopoulos,et al.  Full immersive virtual environment CAVETM in chemistry education , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[7]  Dieter Kranzlmuller,et al.  State of the art of virtual reality technology , 2016, 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference.

[8]  Tuck Wah Leong,et al.  Exploring Gameplay Experiences on the Oculus Rift , 2015, CHI PLAY.

[9]  Ernest T. Pascarella.  How College Affects Students: Ten Directions for Future Research , 2006 .

[10]  Antonio Catania,et al.  Internet‐based versus traditional teaching and learning methods , 2014, The clinical teacher.

[11]  R. Trelease,et al.  From chalkboard, slides, and paper to e‐learning: How computing technologies have transformed anatomical sciences education , 2016, Anatomical sciences education.

[12]  Jun-Jie Jing,et al.  Virtual reality surgical anatomy of the sphenoid sinus and adjacent structures by the transnasal approach. , 2012, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[13]  Bipasha Choudhury,et al.  Virtual reality anatomy: Is it comparable with traditional methods in the teaching of human forearm musculoskeletal anatomy? , 2011, Anatomical sciences education.

[14]  C. Ng,et al.  An Innovative 3-dimensional Model of the Epitympanum for Teaching of Middle Ear Anatomy , 2015, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[15]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[16]  Cristian A. Linte,et al.  An Interactive 3D Virtual Anatomy Puzzle for Learning and Simulation - Initial Demonstration and Evaluation , 2016, MMVR.

[17]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Computer visualizations: Factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension , 2012, Anatomical sciences education.

[18]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[19]  Christina Amaxopoulou,et al.  Stereoscopic neuroanatomy lectures using a three-dimensional virtual reality environment. , 2015, Annals of anatomy = Anatomischer Anzeiger : official organ of the Anatomische Gesellschaft.

[20]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation , 2007, Internet High. Educ..

[21]  L Curry.  Learning preferences and continuing medical education. , 1981, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[22]  Chien Huan Chien,et al.  An interactive augmented reality system for learning anatomy structure , 2010 .

[23]  R. Mayer,et al.  Animation as an Aid to Multimedia Learning , 2002 .

[24]  Timothy D Wilson,et al.  The development of a virtual 3D model of the renal corpuscle from serial histological sections for E‐learning environments , 2015, Anatomical sciences education.

[25]  Sandrine de Ribaupierre,et al.  Evaluation of Neuroanatomical Training Using a 3D Visual Reality Model , 2012, MMVR.

[26]  David K. Harrison,et al.  Virtual Reality medical training system for anatomy education , 2014, 2014 Science and Information Conference.

[27]  C. Moro,et al.  The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy , 2017, Anatomical sciences education.

[28]  Andreas Knote,et al.  Cyber sick but still having fun , 2016, VRST.

[29]  Michelle McLean,et al.  Supporting Students’ Transition to University and Problem-Based Learning , 2017 .

[30]  Simon Davis,et al.  A Systematic Review of Cybersickness , 2014, IE.

[31]  R. Mayer.  Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[32]  Marcelo Knörich Zuffo,et al.  A fully immersive virtual model to explore archaeological sites , 2016, VR.

[33]  E. Dale.  Audio-visual methods in teaching , 1946 .

[34]  Johanna Pirker,et al.  Evaluating Experiences in Different Virtual Reality Setups , 2016, ICEC.

[35]  Chwen Jen Chen,et al.  The design, development and evaluation of a virtual reality based learning environment , 2006 .

[36]  Samy A. Azer,et al.  3D Anatomy Models and Impact on Learning: A Review of the Quality of the Literature , 2016 .

[37]  Kevin Fung,et al.  Three-dimensional educational computer model of the larynx: voicing a new direction. , 2009, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[38]  S. DiCarlo,et al.  First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. , 2006, Advances in physiology education.

[39]  Patricia S O'Sullivan,et al.  Comparison of traditional methods with 3D computer models in the instruction of hepatobiliary anatomy , 2011, Anatomical sciences education.

[40]  Gaëlle Molinari,et al.  How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models , 2015, Anatomical sciences education.

[41]  Charles B. Owen,et al.  Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays , 2016, Virtual Reality.

[42]  P. Howarth,et al.  The occurrence of virtual simulation sickness symptoms when an HMD was used as a personal viewing system , 1997 .

[43]  Seyed M. Buhari,et al.  Towards simulation of the classroom learning experience: Virtual reality approach , 2016, 2016 3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom).