ArticleBMC medical education2026
Benefit of mixed reality assistance on CT-based ear anatomy spatial recognition: a preliminary study.
Article in BMC medical 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the benefit of a mixed reality (MR) platform on CT-based ear anatomy spatial recognition and annotation performance by comparing with traditional learning.
methodsA prospective study (N=8) assigned undergraduate medical students to the MR group and traditional group (textbooks and images). Each completed identification exercises of 8 key anatomical structures on 20 temporal bone CT cases over three learning phases. Outcomes included annotation accuracy, task completion time and learning curve. Participants completed a Likert-style questionnaire evaluating the learning experience and the adverse health effects experienced.
resultsThe MR group achieved an earlier learning plateau and better performance than the traditional group (6.0±3.5 vs. 8.0±4.9 cases). Mixed-design ANOVA demonstrated consistent, large-magnitude performance advantages for the MR group in annotation accuracy (η²ₚ=0.605) and task completion time (η²ₚ=0.875). MR teaching method was most advantageous for complex structures such as the ossicular chain and facial nerve. Learning experience scores were higher with MR, though 50% of MR users reported mild visual fatigue.
conclusionsIn this preliminary study, MR-assisted learning shortened the learning curve and improved performance on a CT-based temporal bone annotation task compared with textbook-based learning, with the most pronounced advantages observed for spatially complex structures. These findings indicate the potential of MR as an adjunct in CT-based ear anatomy training and warrant evaluation in larger cohorts.
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.