137 - Comparison of Virtual Reality, Videos, and 3D Models on Learner Comprehension and Application of Functional Motion

Poster Board Number: 137
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Ilana Bayer - McMaster University; Emma Plater - McMaster University; Ken Yu - McMaster University; Jeswende Seedu - McMaster University

Abstract Body : Introduction and Objectives:




Images and cadaveric prosection are helpful in visualizing static anatomy. However, real-time demonstration of dynamic anatomy is limited. For students in movement-based sciences, visualizing anatomical structures through movement helps in understanding the musculoskeletal system. Research suggests that virtual reality (VR) use in anatomy education can improve the learning of clinical skills (i.e., patient positioning). This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of immersive VR modalities in facilitating learner comprehension and application of functional movement in clinical scenarios, when compared to non-immersive videos & static 3D models.




Materials and Methods:




Sixty participants will be recruited to learn about a specific muscle using either VR, video or 3D anatomical models. Knowledge acquisition will be evaluated through 1) test questions on muscular origin, insertion and action, and 2) teaching an individual an exercise that targets the specific muscle. Three muscles (i.e., supraspinatus, gluteus medius, rectus femoris) will be assessed, with twenty participants being randomly allocated to each group, such that every participant experiences each modality once. Blinded assessors will evaluate the participant’s ability to carry out the task using a numerical grade. Visual-spatial ability and depth perception will be assessed using the Stereo Fly test and Mental Rotation Test, respectively, as these may be confounding variables. Participants will complete a post-test questionnaire evaluating their experience using different modalities.




Results:




Knowledge of functional movement will be assessed based on answers to test questions. Application skills will be assessed by a grader using a standardized scale. GraphPad Prism software will be used for quantitative analyses; p-values < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. The post-test questionnaire will provide information on user experience and confidence in teaching exercises. Thematic qualitative data analysis will be conducted using Dedoose qualitative analysis software. The qualitative data will be triangulated with the quantitative data.




Conclusions:




The results of this study will determine the effectiveness of VR compared to videos and 3D models for visualizing and learning about anatomical structures and their function.




Significance and Implications:




The results of this study will facilitate educators in movement-based programs, to make informed decisions on the use of different modalities for anatomical education, as it relates to clinical skill development. The findings may also be used to inform continued education offerings for healthcare professionals to supplement understanding and clinical decision-making.