Although cadavers constitute the gold standard for teaching anatomy to medical and health science students, there are substantial financial, ethical, and supervisory constraints on their use. In addition, although anatomy remains one of the fundamental areas of medical education, universities have decreased the hours allocated to teaching gross anatomy in favor of applied clinical work. The release of virtual (VR) and augmented reality (AR) devices allows learning to occur through hands-on immersive experiences. The aim of this research was to assess whether learning structural anatomy utilizing VR or AR is as effective as tablet-based (TB) applications, and whether these modes allowed enhanced student learning, engagement and performance. Participants (n = 59) were randomly allocated to one of the three learning modes: VR, AR, or TB and completed a lesson on skull anatomy, after which they completed an anatomical knowledge assessment. Student perceptions of each learning mode and any adverse effects experienced were recorded. No significant differences were found between mean assessment scores in VR, AR, or TB. During the lessons however, VR participants were more likely to exhibit adverse effects such as headaches (25% in VR P < 0.05), dizziness (40% in VR, P < 0.001), or blurred vision (35% in VR, P < 0.01). Both VR and AR are as valuable for teaching anatomy as tablet devices, but also promote intrinsic benefits such as increased learner immersion and engagement. These outcomes show great promise for the effective use of virtual and augmented reality as means to supplement lesson content in anatomical education. Anat Sci Educ 10: 549-559. © 2017 American Association of Anatomists.

Virtual and augmented reality have seen increasing employment for teaching within medical and health sciences programs. For disciplines such as physiology and anatomy, these technologies may disrupt the traditional modes of teaching and content delivery. The objective of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to evaluate the impact of virtual reality or augmented reality on knowledge acquisition for students studying preclinical physiology and anatomy. The protocol was submitted to Prospero and literature search undertaken in PubMed, Embase, ERIC, and other databases. Citations were reviewed and articles published in full assessing learning or knowledge acquisition in preclinical physiology and anatomy from virtual or augmented reality were included. Of the 919 records found, 58 eligible articles were reviewed in full‐text, with 8 studies meeting full eligibility requirements. There was no significant difference in knowledge scores from combining the eight studies (626 participants), with the pooled difference being a non‐significant increase of 2.9 percentage points (95% CI [−2.9; 8.6]). For the four studies comparing virtual reality to traditional teaching, the pooled treatment effect difference was 5.8 percentage points (95% CI [−4.1; 15.7]). For the five studies comparing augmented reality to traditional teaching, the pooled treatment effect difference was 0.07 (95% CI [−7.0; 7.2]). Upon review of the literature, it is apparent that educators could benefit from adopting assessment processes that evaluate three‐dimensional spatial understanding as a priority in physiology and anatomy. The overall evidence suggests that although test performance is not significantly enhanced with either mode, both virtual and augmented reality are viable alternatives to traditional methods of education in health sciences and medical courses.

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.

Due to increasing demands in the amount of content to be learned within a medical and health sciences curriculum, there are benefits towards exploring options for new and effective delivery modes. Augmented reality technology has the potential to enhance learning in physiology and anatomy, where students require a three‐dimensional knowledge of human organ systems and structures. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of learning when an identical lesson was delivered through augmented reality using either the Microsoft HoloLens or a mobile handheld tablet device. Thirty‐eight pre‐clinical undergraduate participants completed a lesson detailing the physiology and anatomy of the brain. Pre‐ and post‐intervention tests were provided to evaluate acquired knowledge. After the activity, participants also completed a Likert‐style questionnaire to evaluate adverse health effects experienced and assess their perceptions of the module. There were no significant differences between test scores from lesson delivery in either the HoloLens or mobile‐based augmented reality. However, a significant increase was reported in dizziness when using the HoloLens (25% higher, n = 19, p = .04). No other adverse health effects, such as nausea, disorientation or fatigue were observed. Both modes were effective for learning, providing evidence to support educators and developers wishing to adopt an augmented reality method of delivery in health sciences and medicine. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at https://youtu.be/GSayCmopGZg What is already known about this topic Modern technology continues to disrupt the way we teach in higher education. Teaching through virtual and augmented reality has shown great benefit in enhancing learning and the student experience in health sciences and medicine. There is the potential for new and upcoming delivery modes to continue this trend, including the introduction of both mobile and head‐mounted display based augmented reality. What this study contributes Investigates the potential for augmented reality to be used as a teaching tool, and supports its implementation in tertiary education. Identifies that although slight dizziness was reported in some participants from using the HoloLens, this does not appear to impact learning or student perceptions of the technology. Presents the HoloLens and mobile‐based augmented reality as novel and evidence‐based methods of instruction in health sciences and medicine. Implications for practice and/or policy Augmented reality is an effective delivery mode which can enhance learning. Students consider augmented reality through both the HoloLens and mobile‐based devices to be enjoyable and engaging. This novel method of instruction is useful to supplement learning in a tertiary education programme.

New accessible learning methods delivered through mobile mixed reality are becoming possible in education, shifting pedagogy from the use of two dimensional images and videos to facilitating learning via interactive mobile environments. This is especially important in medical and health education, where the required knowledge acquisition is typically much more experiential, self-directed, and hands-on than in many other disciplines. Presented are insights obtained from the implementation and testing of two mobile mixed reality interventions across two Australian higher education classrooms in medicine and health sciences, concentrating on student perceptions of mobile mixed reality for learning physiology and anatomy in a face-to-face medical and health science classroom and skills acquisition in airways management focusing on direct laryngoscopy with foreign body removal in a distance paramedic science classroom. This is unique because most studies focus on a single discipline, focusing on either skills or the learner experience and a single delivery modality rather than linking cross-discipline knowledge acquisition and the development of a student's tangible skills across multimodal classrooms. Outcomes are presented from post-intervention student interviews and discipline academic observation, which highlight improvements in learner motivation and skills, but also demonstrated pedagogical challenges to overcome with mobile mixed reality learning.