Joanna K Weeks1, Jina Pakpoor1, Brian J Park1, Nicole J Robinson2, Neal A Rubinstein2, Stephen M Prouty2, Arun C Nachiappan3. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 1 Silverstein, Suite 130, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, 1 Silverstein, Suite 130, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: arun.nachiappan@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D) visualization has been shown to benefit new generations of medical students and physicians-in-training in a variety of contexts. However, there is limited research directly comparing student performance after using 3D tools to those using two-dimensional (2D) screens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A CT was performed on a donated cadaver and a 3D CT hologram was created. A total of 30 first-year medical students were randomly assigned into two groups to review head and neck anatomy in a teaching session that incorporated CT. The first group used an augmented reality headset, while the second group used a laptop screen. The students were administered a five-question anatomy test before and after the session. Two-tailed t-tests were used for statistical comparison of pretest and posttest performance within and between groups. A feedback survey was distributed for qualitative data. RESULTS: Pretest vs. posttest comparison of average percentage of questions answered correctly demonstrated both groups showing significant in-group improvement (p < 0.05), from 59% to 95% in the augmented reality group, and from 57% to 80% in the screen group. Between-group analysis indicated that posttest performance was significantly better in the augmented reality group (p = 0.022, effect size = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Immersive 3D visualization has the potential to improve short-term anatomic recall in the head and neck compared to traditional 2D screen-based review, as well as engage millennial learners to learn better in anatomy laboratory. Our findings may reflect additional benefit gained from the stereoscopic depth cues present in augmented reality-based visualization.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D) visualization has been shown to benefit new generations of medical students and physicians-in-training in a variety of contexts. However, there is limited research directly comparing student performance after using 3D tools to those using two-dimensional (2D) screens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A CT was performed on a donated cadaver and a 3D CT hologram was created. A total of 30 first-year medical students were randomly assigned into two groups to review head and neck anatomy in a teaching session that incorporated CT. The first group used an augmented reality headset, while the second group used a laptop screen. The students were administered a five-question anatomy test before and after the session. Two-tailed t-tests were used for statistical comparison of pretest and posttest performance within and between groups. A feedback survey was distributed for qualitative data. RESULTS: Pretest vs. posttest comparison of average percentage of questions answered correctly demonstrated both groups showing significant in-group improvement (p < 0.05), from 59% to 95% in the augmented reality group, and from 57% to 80% in the screen group. Between-group analysis indicated that posttest performance was significantly better in the augmented reality group (p = 0.022, effect size = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Immersive 3D visualization has the potential to improve short-term anatomic recall in the head and neck compared to traditional 2D screen-based review, as well as engage millennial learners to learn better in anatomy laboratory. Our findings may reflect additional benefit gained from the stereoscopic depth cues present in augmented reality-based visualization.
Authors: Ningcheng Li; Jonathan Wakim; Yilun Koethe; Timothy Huber; Ryan Schenning; Terence P Gade; Stephen J Hunt; Brian J Park Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 6.313