ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Exploring interaction paradigms for segmenting medical images in virtual reality.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeVirtual reality (VR) can offer immersive platforms for segmenting complex medical images to facilitate a better understanding of anatomical structures for training, diagnosis, surgical planning, and treatment evaluation. These applications rely on user interaction within the VR environment to manipulate and interpret medical data. However, the optimal interaction schemes and input devices for segmentation tasks in VR remain unclear. This study compares user performance and experience using two different input schemes.
methodsTwelve participants segmented 6 CT/MRI images using two input methods: keyboard and mouse (KBM) and motion controllers (MCs). Performance was assessed using accuracy, completion time, and efficiency. A post-task questionnaire measured users' perceived performance and experience.
resultsNo significant overall time difference was observed between the two input methods, though KBM was faster for larger segmentation tasks. Accuracy was consistent across input schemes. Participants rated both methods as equally challenging, with similar efficiency levels, but found MCs more enjoyable to use.
conclusionThese findings suggest that VR segmentation software should support flexible input options tailored to task complexity. Future work should explore enhancements to motion controller interfaces to improve usability and user experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40402355What 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.