ArticleBioelectronic medicine2026
Teaching through technology: comparing student experiences of VR and computer simulations in orthoptics education.
Article in Bioelectronic medicine, 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
backgroundVirtual Reality (VR) has previously been found to provide both an effective and enjoyable learning environment for users to develop a wide range of skills. However, despite uptake in fields such as medicine and veterinary medicine, there is little research into the use of VR for diagnostics training with Orthoptists.
methodsThis study compared students' experiences of a collaborative VR learning environment with the Strabismus desktop computer simulation for practicing the diagnosis of ocular deviations and limitations. The VR system provided stereoscopic depth and natural controller-based interaction, enabling students to practice diagnostic procedures with greater spatial realism than 2D simulators. Thirty one first year and twenty one second year Orthoptics students from the University of Liverpool were tasked with diagnosing simulated patients in both learning environments. After completing their diagnoses, students' user experience, sense of presence, comfort with patient proximity, and their thoughts on the use of VR in higher education (SHEQ) were measured.
resultsStudents reported higher hedonic user experience scores for VR, whereas pragmatic user experience scores were higher for the desktop simulation. SHEQ responses indicated a general preference for VR as a learning tool. However, there were no significant differences in sense of presence, or comfort with proximity to patient scores.
conclusionsThis study shows how commodity VR hardware can be adapted for specialist healthcare training. Although VR did not demonstrate advantages across all measured outcomes, students generally perceived it positively and preferred it over using 2D displays as a learning tool within higher education. These findings suggest that VR may have potential as a supplementary educational resource for Orthoptics training. However, further research is required to determine whether these positive perceptions translate into real world improvements in learning, diagnostic performance, and clinical practice.
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.