ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2024
Immersive virtual reality-based learning as a supplement for biomedical engineering labs: challenges faced and lessons learned.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effectiveness of immersive virtual reality as a student-centered tool for learning neuroanatomy: A single-blind randomized controlled trial with physiotherapy students.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Trial
- Student performance and perceptions in a hybrid laboratory model: an exploratory study of interactive virtual simulations and in-person integration in a foundational microbiology course.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.