Trial reportAnatomical sciences education2026
Exploring the impact of virtual reality anatomy training on preparing biomedical illustrators for drawing anatomical structures.
Trial report in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional visualization technologies (3DVTs) in anatomy education are popular as they offer a cost-effective and accessible alternative to cadaveric specimens. However, the literature presents conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of 3DVTs in facilitating learning compared with traditional models. This study explores whether displaying 3D models using a virtual reality (VR) headset induces a stereoscopic experience comparable to that of physical models, by examining the quality of learners' depth perception as they reference different modalities to complete a series of illustrations. Using a crossover design, biomedical illustration trainers were randomly assigned to two groups and completed three illustrations using different reference modalities (2D, prosection, VR model). Illustrations were scored by subject matter experts using a validated scoring rubric and the mean scores for each modality were compared. Following their VR experience, participants completed a cybersickness and user experience survey. Participants (n = 17) were confirmed to have stereovision and average visuospatial ability. A two-way repeated measure ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of modality, where illustrations produced while referencing the 2D cadaveric image and prosection scored higher than those created using the VR model. Notably, participants demonstrated reduced ability in depicting depth of anatomical layers when referencing the VR model. Contrary to our hypothesis, the VR models did not provide similar quality of depth perception as prosection. Qualitative data suggest this may be a result of methodological challenges that increase cognitive processing demands on learners, potentially hindering learners' ability to interpret visuospatial cues.
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.