Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38566843›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2024

Immersive virtual reality-based learning as a supplement for biomedical engineering labs: challenges faced and lessons learned.

Ishita Tandon, Vitali Maldonado, Megan Wilkerson, Amanda Walls, Raj R Rao, Mostafa Elsaadany

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

6 authors.

Ishita TandonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
Vitali MaldonadoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
Megan WilkersonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
Amanda WallsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
Raj R RaoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.
Mostafa ElsaadanyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, United States.

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

Introduction: Immersive virtual reality (VR) based laboratory demonstrations have been gaining traction in STEM education as they can provide virtual hands-on experience. VR can also facilitate experiential and visual learning and enhanced retention. However, several optimizations of the implementation, in-depth analyses of advantages and trade-offs of the technology, and assessment of receptivity of modern techniques in STEM education are required to ensure better utilization of VR-based labs. Methods: In this study, we developed VR-based demonstrations for a biomolecular engineering laboratory and assessed their effectiveness using surveys containing free responses and 5-point Likert scale-based questions. Insta360 Pro2 camera and Meta Quest 2 headsets were used in combination with an in-person lab. A cohort of 53 students watched the experimental demonstration on VR headsets in the lab after a brief lab overview in person and then performed the experiments in the lab. Results: Only 28.29% of students reported experiencing some form of discomfort after using the advanced VR equipment as opposed to 63.63% of students from the previous cohort. About 40% of the students reported that VR eliminated or reduced auditory and visual distractions from the environment, the length of the videos was appropriate, and they received enough information to understand the tasks. Discussion: The traditional lab method was found to be more suitable for explaining background information and lab concepts while the VR was found to be suitable for demonstrating lab procedures and tasks. Analyzing open-ended questions revealed several factors and recommendations to overcome the potential challenges and pitfalls of integrating VR with traditional modes of learning. This study provides key insights to help optimize the implementation of immersive VR to effectively supplement in-person learning experiences.

Indexed as

augmented and virtual realitybiomedical engineering educationimproving classroom teachingoptimized implementationundergraduate laboratory

Identifiers

PMID38566843
PMCPMC10985327

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.