The Effects of Virtual Reality on Learning Ability of Craniofacial Anatomy and
Spatial Reasoning skills with Technology
A research project conducted by Morgan N. Marshall, BVIS class of 2020
Overview of problem:
In the present day, the technology boom has given way to several new novel technologies. Some of these being virtual reality also known as VR and Augmented reality, also known as AR.
With the rise of these technologies, educator want to understand if they can be used to help enhance the learning field overall. There are many research studies that look into seeking using these as educational tools for the future and are coupling them with teaching extremely complex topics such as anatomy.
Health professional education is extremely fast paced, dense, and complex. Our future health professionals are required to know a lot of information in a very condensed amount of time. Many are wondering if AR and VR can be the solution for teaching our Future Health professionals and fixing the short comings in their education that many have expressed could be improved.
Research Gaps Addressed:
Several studies have proven that AR and VR are powerful interactive applications with the potential to help improve spatial understanding of anatomy. However, when looking into which media would be best to useI only found articles that assessed 3D Desktop applications against traditional means of learning, or virtual reality application against traditional means of learning.
There were little to no articles that dissected the understanding of which new, novel technology would be best fit for teaching students craniofacial anatomy. No articles compared these new technologies directly against each other to figure out which interactive media is the best to use.
There were also little to no articles assessing future health professionals spatial abilities in correlation to their ability to use virtual reality or 3D desktop application despite future health professionals needing to have a need for spatial reasoning skills to absorb information.
Research Questions:
Research Question #1: Can a virtual reality environment improve knowledge of spatial relationships in craniofacial anatomy compared to a desktop environment?
Research Question #2: Does a student's spatial ability level affect their interaction with virtual reality and desktop environments for educational tools?
Methods:
VR application was developed for the HTC Vive and built in Unity™. Desktop 3D Application was built in Unity™.
Total of 19 students who had either previous taken anatomy/and or craniofacial from UIC. Students were randomly assorted in either using the Desktop Application or the Virtual relation application.
Students were given a pre-assessment for knowledge of Craniofacial and a spatial reasoning test. After exposure to the given application, students were then given a post-assessment examination.
Research Significance:
By comparing VR and Desktop applications biomedical visualizers can have more understand of which media to use when developing interactive programs. Figuring out which media is better to teach craniofacial anatomy would better help anatomy education .
Approaching the problem of functionality between 3D desktop and Virtual reality
When approaching this problem, I wanted to test the effects of using different media to learn the same subject matter. To limit the amount of variables both the desktop and virtual reality programs had to be the same in functionality while the only key differences were the means by which the information was delivered to the user. Below are Sketches of comparing the functionality of desktop versus
Differences in UI
(Top row Desktop model, bottom row VR)
When approaching the problem it was decided early on what type of UI would be used to help focus on spatial relationships between structures. Opacity functionality were a major part of the programs along with giving the user the ability to still toggle on and off subsections of the models
Differences in controllers
(Top row Desktop model, bottom row VR)
This sketch here assessed how users would approach the same model while being either in desktop or in VR to help keep a baseline in functionality. This was assessed in the wireframe with the purpose of making sure every function in desktop was available in VR.
Differences in functionality
(Top row Desktop model, bottom row VR)
While the desktop version had the options of using zoom and rotate, the VR application did not. This was done to encourage users to use the functionality of VR and engage more readily. Rotation around the model would be preformed by simply moving ones body around and zoom would be preform by leaning in, or moving closer.
3D Desktop Application
Total of eight students from the nineteen recruited were randomly assorted into the 3D desktop application. Please view video below to see all the programmed functionality. All models were created within Z-Brush™and CT scans were analyzed in Materalise Mimics™.
Two paired T-Tests were conducted comparing the groups pre-tests and post-tests against each other to see if there was a statistical difference in comparing their improved before and after exposure to the respective model.
The p-value for the desktop group was 0.79 (~0.8) showing no significant difference in improvement between the pre-test and the post-test.
Virtual Reality Application
The key differences in the virtual reality application include the instruction delivery and the ability to move around in the environment. In the VR environment, students were able to see the instructions written on the walls and are able to move around the usage of the arched pointer and interact with UI with the straight pointer.
*Screen recording was done with the VRTK virtual reality simulator in place of a proper screen recording due to COVID-19 outbreak interrupting the last week of the experiment.
Two paired T-Tests were conducted comparing the groups pre-tests and post-tests against each other to see if there was a statistical difference in comparing their improved before and after exposure to the respective model.
The virtual reality group’s p-value for their pair t-test was 0.003, showing to be statistically significant in improvement after exposure to the virtual reality application .
Discussion
The virtual reality group having a statistically significant p-value while the desktop did not has the implication that there is a way to best deliver certain topics through specific media.
These results help further understand which media to use when delivering information on spatial relationships dealing with the mandibular pathway of infection. The usage of VR when delivering material is extremely powerful and we as medical visualizers have the option of using various medias at our disposal to help better communicate complex science topics. Understanding which media is effective in learning helps us better understand and chose what to use going forward.