ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2026
Mixed reality simulation of guided needle insertion: effects of interaction and visual fidelity.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 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
Abstract
purposeMixed reality (MR) simulations are increasingly used in medical training to provide safe, controllable, and repeatable practice environments. While visual fidelity (VF) and interaction fidelity (IF) are known to influence user experience (UX), their respective effects on performance and UX in complex, precision-based medical procedures remain insufficiently understood.
methodsWe conducted a within-subjects user study investigating the effects of VF (high vs. low) and IF (tangible vs. virtual interaction) in a precise needle insertion task. A non-immersive setup served as a reference condition. Performance metrics, perceived realism, workload, and UX were assessed across conditions.
resultsBoth fidelity factors successfully modulated perceived realism. Tangible interaction significantly improved insertion depth control, reduced workload, and enhanced UX. High VF primarily increased spatial presence and involvement, with only limited benefits for task performance. Interaction effects revealed that tangible interaction provided greater advantages under low VF, particularly in terms of task completion time and needle alignment.
conclusionVisual and interaction fidelity play distinct and complementary roles in MR-based medical training. Tangible interaction predominantly supports procedural accuracy and efficiency, whereas high visual fidelity mainly enhances immersive engagement. MR system design should therefore align fidelity decisions with specific training objectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573938What 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.