Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35941621›Full record

ArticleJournal of biological engineering2022

Incorporating immersive learning into biomedical engineering laboratories using virtual reality.

Megan Wilkerson, Vitali Maldonado, Srikanth Sivaraman, Raj R Rao, Mostafa Elsaadany

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biological engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The use of 3D video in medical education: A scoping review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Megan WilkersonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA.
Vitali MaldonadoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA.
Srikanth SivaramanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA.
Raj R RaoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA.
Mostafa ElsaadanyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA. mselsaad@uark.edu.

Funding

Educational Toolkit for Bioengineering Design, Entrepreneurship and Service LearningR25EB029377 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT FAYETTEVILLE · PI RAO, RAJ RAGHAVENDRA · 2020 to 2024
$128k
NIBIB NIH HHS R25 EB029377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic caused a sudden shift towards remote learning, moving classes to online formats. Not exempt from this switch, laboratory courses traditionally taught in-person were also moved to remote methods, costing students the opportunity to learn these skills hands-on. In order for instructors to provide course materials effectively and engagingly, non-traditional methods should be explored. Virtual reality (VR) has become more accessible in recent years. VR simulations have been used for many years as educational tools in high-risk settings such as flight or medical simulations. Immersive VR videos implemented in a remote laboratory course could provide the students with an engaging and suitable learning experience. To test the effectiveness of VR videos as a tool for remote education, VR videos of the laboratory component of a Biomolecular Engineering course were provided to students. A survey was distributed for students to self-report their experience with the videos. The survey contained quantitative and qualitative ratings of VR as an educational tool.

resultsThe survey showed that students (~ 89% strongly agree or agree) believed the videos provided the opportunity to work at their own pace and were an appropriate length. While ~ 74% of students said that the videos provided enough information to understand the tasks, a small percentage felt that the videos improved their retention (~ 16%) and understanding (~ 9%) of the course material. About 28% of the students responded positively when asked about how VR videos improved their engagement with the material. ~ 30% reported confidence in applying the skills learned in the videos in the future and ~ 43% believe the VR videos were an acceptable alternative to in-person labs. Two-thirds of students reported feeling some form of discomfort while viewing the VR videos and 54% reported not using the headset for the videos and using the 3D video feature instead.

conclusionsAs many students reported the videos containing appropriate information, the content of the videos was not an issue. A combination of improved camera quality with motion stability, more comfortable headsets, and a reduction in editing issues could greatly improve the quality and effectiveness of VR videos.

Indexed as

Biomedical engineering laboratoryEngineering educationSTEM remote learningVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID35941621
PMCPMC9360725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.