Comparing learning retention in medical students using mixed-reality to supplement dissection: a preliminary study

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate student impressions of learning anatomy with mixed-reality and compare long-term information retention of female breast anatomy between students who learned with a mixed-reality supplement and their classmates who dissected cadavers. Methods In Part 1, 38 first-year medical student volunteers, randomly divided into two groups, completed a mixed-reality module and cadaveric dissection on the female breast in a counterbalanced design. Participants also completed post-quizzes and surveys. Part 2 was a non-randomized controlled trial, 8-months after completing Part 1 and 6-months after a final exam on this content. The performance of twenty-two Part 1 participants and 129 of their classmates, who only dissected, was compared on a delayed post-quiz. Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Mann-Whitney U test, and 95% confidence intervals were used to analyze the data. Results In Part 1, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test determined that participants expressed significantly more positive responses to mixed-reality and found mixed-reality easier for learning and teamwork. In Part 2, the Mann-Whitney U test found mixed-reality participants scored significantly higher on a delayed-post quiz than their classmates who only dissected (U = 928, p < .009). Conclusions This study suggests that medical students may prefer mixed-reality and that it may be an effective modality for learning breast anatomy while facilitating teamwork. Results also suggest that supplementing cadaveric dissection with mixed-reality may improve long-term retention for at least one anatomical topic. It is recommended that similar studies evaluate a larger sample and additional anatomical regions to determine the generalizability of these findings.

Immersive virtual reality and augmented reality in anatomy education: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Included studies were published between 2013 and 2023 and most frequently originated in the following countries: United States and Australia (22.2% each), 57,68,70,71,75,82 Germany (18.5%), 56,62,67,74,78 and Canada 58,65,81 and Australia 59,66,72 (11.1% each). The included studies yielded data from 2199 students from across various health sciences disciplines (e.g., medicine, biomedicine, nursing, and physiotherapy).…”

“…students included, 1023 learned using XR technologies (420 students iVR 60,61,[64][65][66]73,74,[79][80][81][82] and 603 AR [56][57][58][59]62,63,[66][67][68][69]71,72,[75][76][77][78] ) and 1176 learned using traditional methods (i.e., textbooks, cadaveric dissections, atlases, didactic lectures, anatomical physical models, and/or images displayed in PowerPoint). The anatomical systems/regions that were studied with XR technologies included: musculoskeletal system, 64,68,71,[75][76][77]79 neuroanatomy, 62,63,66,69,70,73,81 inner ear, 58,74 cardiac system, 65,72 skin, 67 digestive system, 61 pelvic floor, 59 and breast.…”

“…The anatomical systems/regions that were studied with XR technologies included: musculoskeletal system, 64,68,71,[75][76][77]79 neuroanatomy, 62,63,66,69,70,73,81 inner ear, 58,74 cardiac system, 65,72 skin, 67 digestive system, 61 pelvic floor, 59 and breast. 57 Studies collected knowledge performance data on XR effectiveness immediately following the interventions. The length of the interventions ranged from 1 day in 25 studies (93% of all studies) to 5 80 and 6 71 days in two other studies.…”

“…questions, and open-ended free-response such as short answer or essays). 57,70,71,73,75,79,80 For students' perceptions of the usefulness of XR technologies, the included studies provided outcomes of selfreported questionnaires that utilized 5-point Likert scales with questions such as "VR is useful for my learning," "It is an effective learning tool,"…”

“…Some studies reported a probable or unclear risk of selection bias because random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not met or were unclear in 11 studies (40.7%; 11/27). [56][57][58]60,61,65,67,69,70,73,78 The impossibility of blinding the participants and the staff who carried out the interventions was responsible for the risk of performance bias (100%; 27/27). However, in four studies (14.8%; 4/27), 64,65,67,81 where the evaluators were blinded, a high risk of detection bias was present.…”