ArticleAnatomical sciences education2025
Engagement and cognitive load of upper-year medical trainees during mixed reality-enhanced dissection.
Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Engagement and cognitive load of upper-year medical trainees during mixed reality-enhanced dissection.Anatomical sciences 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mixed reality (MR) offers a way to visualize and manipulate complex digital objects in three dimensions, which is particularly beneficial for human anatomy. However, implementing MR effectively requires a deep understanding of its effects on cognitive processes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate cognitive markers of students' engagement and cognitive load while they used MR technology to overlay donor-specific diagnostic imaging onto the corresponding body donors in a fourth-year medical elective course. During two separate dissection sessions, each participant (n = 12) used the imaging on (1) a head-mounted Microsoft HoloLens and (2) an Apple iPad to examine the underlying anatomy of their body donor before beginning dissection. During each activity, participants wore portable five-lead electroencephalographic (EEG) devices to collect cognitive processing data. Separate indexes were calculated from those data to quantify engagement (engagement index; EI) and cognitive load (theta-alpha ratio; TAR), which were compared between HoloLens and iPad usage. Mean EI calculated from EEG data collected while using the HoloLens (0.499 ± 0.038) was significantly higher than the mean EI while using an iPad (0.297 ± 0.037; p = 0.002). Conversely, the mean TAR calculated from EEG data collected while using the HoloLens (1.508 ± 0.047) was significantly lower than that collected while using an iPad (1.813 ± 0.071; p = 0.012). These results indicate that the use of HoloLens to superimpose radiographic images onto a human body donor during dissection is significantly more engaging and requires less cognitive effort than the same task on an iPad.
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.