149 - Virtual Reality as an Anatomy Education Tool: Determining Key Learning Factors

Poster Board Number: 149
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Co-authors:

Veronica DeYoung - Queen's University; Amit Nehru - University of Toronto; Danielle Brewer-Deluce - McMaster University; Bruce Wainman - McMaster University

Abstract Body : Introduction and Objective: Anatomy education, like many other disciplines, has shifted towards content delivery via virtual reality (VR). VR offers limitless opportunity to move learning outside of the classroom while retaining an interactive and immersive environment. Its educational efficacy, however, is mixed, particularly when compared to traditional methods, with concerns regarding increased cognitive load and cybersickness levels. The objective of this review is to identify and explore learning determinant factors that affect VR’s effectiveness in anatomy education.









Materials and Methods: A scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework was undertaken, using keywords such as "VR", "anatomy", and "education". Studies published from March 2002 to February 2022 were searched for across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO). A two-stage screening process (i.e., title and abstract screening, and full-text screening) identified eligible studies. Two researchers conducted the screening process, with any disagreements resolved by a third researcher. Data was extracted and all measures were sorted, using post hoc categorization, into six common learning determinant categories: cognitive load, cybersickness, interactivity, student perceptions, stereopsis, and spatial understanding. Trends within each category were further explored via a thematic analysis.









Results: 4523 studies were identified, of which 25 were included after screening. One study compared two VR systems, five had no comparators, and 19 compared immersive VR with other learning methods (i.e., augmented reality, three-dimensional models, and traditional learning tools). Studies that assessed cognitive load in VR found no significant difference from other modalities and no cognitive overload in users. Cybersickness symptom severity was found to have a positive correlation with interactivity and VR use duration. Learners generally perceived VR positively for learning anatomy. Stereopsis was found to be vital, affecting performance when using monocular vision. Finally, the impact of students’ spatial ability on learning in VR is unclear, with mixed study results.









Conclusion: VR offers valuable learning benefits, has comparable cognitive load levels to other modalities, and is perceived positively by learners. However, interactivity and use duration must be managed to mitigate cybersickness symptoms and ensure an optimal educational experience.









Significance/Implication: The findings underscore the need for further investigation into optimizing VR environments, especially in mitigating cybersickness and understanding long-term learner engagement to create more effective, and user-friendly, VR-based educational tools.