ReviewAnatomical sciences education2026
Considering user experience and cognitive load in the design and development of a virtual reality application for embodied anatomy learning.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) offers new possibilities for anatomy education through immersive and embodied interaction. Early-stage evaluation of VR tools is necessary to assess user experience and perceived cognitive load and to guide iterative development. This pilot study aimed to descriptively evaluate the first prototype of the inCarne VR functional anatomy tool and explore the suitability of an adapted cognitive load questionnaire in this context. Seventeen participants, including kinesiology students and anatomy experts, completed a 15-min guided VR session involving real-time body tracking and skeletal mirroring of hip movements. User experience was assessed using the AttrakDiff questionnaire, measuring pragmatic quality, hedonic quality, and attractiveness. Perceived cognitive load was assessed using an adapted French version of the Leppink Cognitive Load Questionnaire. Analyses focused on descriptive statistics, internal consistency, and exploratory correlation coefficients. User experience ratings were descriptively positive across all dimensions, with attractiveness showing the highest mean score (M = 1.71, SD = 0.59). Intrinsic cognitive load was reported as low (M = 1.54, SD = 1.42), while germane load was higher (M = 4.26, SD = 2.95), indicating reported engagement in task-related cognitive processing. Intrinsic and germane load demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.834-0.950), whereas extraneous load showed low internal consistency (α = 0.283), limiting its interpretability. Exploratory correlations showed moderate to strong descriptive associations between selected user experience and cognitive load dimensions. These findings provide preliminary descriptive evidence supporting the feasibility of the inCarne prototype and inform future development and measurement validation in VR anatomy education.
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.