Medical decision-making largely depends on the caregiver’s fundamental knowledge of anatomy. To this end, the authors discuss a cost-effective augmented reality system for simulated medical research and education. First, we define augmented reality. Second, we will review the history of augmented reality in medical training. Third, we will discuss some of the human factors principles associated with augmented reality training systems. Fourth, we will describe our insight and methods for building a Simulated Medical Augmented Reality Training (SMART) system, which can be used as an alternative training tool for medical and anatomy students. Finally, we will outline five steps that can be taken to build a SMART system.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AzumaR. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385.
2.
BeermannJ.TetzlaffR.BrucknerT.SchoebingerM.Muller-StichB.P.GuttC.N.MeinzerH.KadmonM.FischerL. (2010). Three-dimensional visualization improves understanding of surgical liver anatomy. Medical Education, 44, 936-940.
3.
BichlmeierC.WimmerF.HeiningS.M.NavabN. (2007). Contextual anatomic mimesis: Hybrid in-situ visualization method for improving multi-sensory depth perception in medical augmented reality. Proceedings of the 6th IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (pp. 1-10). Washington, DC, USA.
4.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
5.
CharikerJ. H.NaazF.PaniJ. R. (2011). Computer-based learning of neuroanatomy: A longitudinal study of learning, transfer, and retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 19-31.
6.
CottmanW. W. (1999). Adequacy of medical schools gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors. Clinical Anatomy, 12, 55-65.
EllisH. (2002). Medico-legal litigation and its links with surgical anatomy. Surgery, 20(8), i-ii.
9.
FitzgeraldJ. E. F.WhiteM. J.TangS. W.Maxwell-ArmstrongC. A.JamesD. K. (2008). Are we teaching sufficient anatomy at medical school?Clinical Anatomy, 21, 718-724.
10.
HaririS.RawnC.SrivastavaS.YoungbloodP.LaddA. (2004). Evaluation of a surgical simulator for learning clinical anatomy. Medical Education, 38, 896-902.
11.
HilbelinkA. J. (2009). A measure of the effectiveness of incorporating 3D human anatomy into an online undergraduate laboratory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 664-672.
12.
KancherlaA.R.RollandJ.P.WrightD.L.BurdeaG. (1995). A novel virtual reality tool for training dynamic 3D anatomy. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine, London, UK, 163-169.
13.
KeeblerJ. R.OsoskyS.JentschF.FincannonT. (2010). Gaining ground: Merging cognitive load theory with human factors principles. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, 667-671.
14.
McKeownP. P.HeylingsD. J. A.StevensonM.McKelveyNixonJ. R.McCluskeyD. R. (2003). The impact of curricular change on medical students’ knowledge of anatomy. Medical Education, 37, 954-961.
15.
McLachlanJ. C.BlighJ.BradleyP.SearleJ. (2004). Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Medical Education, 38,418-424.
16.
MilgramPKishinoF. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, 77(12), 1-15.
17.
OlderJ. (2004). Anatomy: A must for teaching the next generation. Surgery Journal, 79-90.
18.
PaasF.Van MerrienboerJ.J.G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
19.
PatelK. M.MoxhamB. J. (2006). Attitudes of professional anatomists to curricular change. Clinical Anatomy, 19, 2, 132-141.
20.
PrinceK. J. A H.ScherpbierA. J. A. A.van MamerenH.DrukkerJ.van der VleutenC. P. M. (2005). Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy?Medical Education, 39, 326-332.
21.
RafteryA. T. (2007). Anatomy teaching in the UK. Surgery, 25(1), 1-2.
22.
RollandJ.P.MeyerC.DavisL.Hamza-LupF.NorfleetJ.ImielinskaC.KernerK.F. (2002). Merging augmented reality and anatomically correct 3D models in the development of a training tool for endotracheal intubation. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, Washington, DC, USA (pp. 895-898).
23.
RollandJ.P.WrightD.L.KancherlaA.R. (1997). Towards a novel augmented-reality tool to visualize dynamic 3-D Anatomy. In MorganK.S.. (Eds.), Medicine Meets Virtual Reality (pp. 337-348).
24.
RosahlS. K.GharabaghiA.HubbeU.ShahidiR.SamiiM. (2006). Virtual reality augmentation in skull base surgery. Skull Base: An Interdisciplinary Approach, 16(2), 59-66.
XuB. (2008). Traditional anatomy teaching and problem-based learning: Is there a middle way?Australian Journal of Surgery, 78, 6.
27.
WaterstonS. W.StewartI. J. (2005). Survey of clinicians’ attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clinical Anatomy, 18, 380-384.
28.
WickensC.D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Harper-Collins.
29.
WinkelmannA. (2007). Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: A review of the evidence. Medical Education, 41, 15-22.
