Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based (Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education

Abstract

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.

Mobile Mixed Reality for Experiential Learning and Simulation in Medical and Health Sciences Education

“…Previous research investigating VR and AR ( Figure 1A [21]) use within a health science and medical curricula found these modes to be as effective for student learning as the commonly used tablet-based applications. In addition, the study demonstrated that there is no impact on learning when anatomical lessons are presented in a more accessible mobile-VR platform, such as the Samsung Gear VR, in place of the more expensive VR platforms, such as the Oculus Rift ( Figure 1B, [17]). Results in an anatomical written assessment (mean ± SD) for participants who learnt using Oculus Rift virtual reality (VR) without touch controllers, augmented reality (AR), or tablet.…”

“…However, modern technology can allow this, and provide health students with learning modules that are far more experiential that other modes [2,17,18] and learning that can be beneficially self-directed [3]. New multimedia knowledge can be updated instantly within an application, and important concepts presented to the student that can assist their understanding of overall concepts [4].…”

“…(B) Comparison of test results from students utilizing either Oculus Rift VR or mobile-based virtual reality devices. Full data published in [17]. This enhanced competence afforded by simulation is especially important in skills development, an integral proficiency for students studying in health education.…”

“…This is now changing with the recent wave of low-cost immersive 3D VR technology by vendors such as Oculus Rift (oculusvr.com) and BYOD Mobile VR by Google through cardboard (vr.google.com/ cardboard) and Samsung through Gear VR (samsung.com/global/galaxy/gear-vr/); powerful free interactive 3D visualisation game software platforms, such as Unity 3D (unity3D.com); and integrated AR plugins such as Vuforia by PTC (vuforia.com). This presents an opportunity to explore methods to provide accessible smartphone-driven BYOD training to learners across multimodal classrooms using cutting-edge mobile MR [16][17][18][19] using AR, VR, 3D printing, and free game engine technology [20].…”

“…For both mixed reality learning interventions, the decision was made to use the off-the-shelf, free game engine development platform, Unity 3D, the Google Cardboard Application Programming Interface (API), the Oculus Rift Software Development Kit (SDK) through Samsung Gear VR (to provide a mobile stereoscopic view), and the Vuforia AR plugin for Unity 3D to process the augmented reality markers. While each study has been presented independently [9,[17][18][19]21], a comparison of the two provides validation for universities or lecturers seeking to adopt mobile mixed-reality within their health sciences and medicine courses, answering the research question, "What general affordances can the use of mixed reality for knowledge acquisition and skills development bring to the discipline of health education? "…”