Using a 360° Virtual Reality or 2D Video to Learn History Taking and Physical Examination Skills for Undergraduate Medical Students: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
cognitive load
heart rate variability
learning outcome
secondary-task reaction time
video learning
virtual reality
Journal
JMIR serious games
ISSN: 2291-9279
Titre abrégé: JMIR Serious Games
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645255
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Nov 2021
22 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
12
12
2018
accepted:
10
09
2021
revised:
02
04
2020
entrez:
23
11
2021
pubmed:
24
11
2021
medline:
24
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Learning through a 360° virtual reality (VR) or 2D video represents an alternative way to learn a complex medical education task. However, there is currently no consensus on how best to assess the effects of different learning materials on cognitive load estimates, heart rate variability (HRV), outcomes, and experience in learning history taking and physical examination (H&P) skills. The aim of this study was to investigate how learning materials (ie, VR or 2D video) impact learning outcomes and experience through changes in cognitive load estimates and HRV for learning H&P skills. This pilot system-design study included 32 undergraduate medical students at an academic teaching hospital. The students were randomly assigned, with a 1:1 allocation, to a 360° VR video group or a 2D video group, matched by age, sex, and cognitive style. The contents of both videos were different with regard to visual angle and self-determination. Learning outcomes were evaluated using the Milestone reporting form. Subjective and objective cognitive loads were estimated using the Paas Cognitive Load Scale, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index, and secondary-task reaction time. Cardiac autonomic function was assessed using HRV measurements. Learning experience was assessed using the AttrakDiff2 questionnaire and qualitative feedback. Statistical significance was accepted at a two-sided P value of <.01. All 32 participants received the intended intervention. The sample consisted of 20 (63%) males and 12 (38%) females, with a median age of 24 (IQR 23-25) years. The 360° VR video group seemed to have a higher Milestone level than the 2D video group (P=.04). The reaction time at the 10th minute in the 360° VR video group was significantly higher than that in the 2D video group (P<.001). Multiple logistic regression models of the overall cohort showed that the 360° VR video module was independently and positively associated with a reaction time at the 10th minute of ≥3.6 seconds (exp B=18.8, 95% CI 3.2-110.8; P=.001) and a Milestone level of ≥3 (exp B=15.0, 95% CI 2.3-99.6; P=.005). However, a reaction time at the 10th minute of ≥3.6 seconds was not related to a Milestone level of ≥3. A low-frequency to high-frequency ratio between the 5th and 10th minute of ≥1.43 seemed to be inversely associated with a hedonic stimulation score of ≥2.0 (exp B=0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.68; P=.015) after adjusting for video module. The main qualitative feedback indicated that the 360° VR video module was fun but caused mild dizziness, whereas the 2D video module was easy to follow but tedious. Our preliminary results showed that 360° VR video learning may be associated with a better Milestone level than 2D video learning, and that this did not seem to be related to cognitive load estimates or HRV indexes in the novice learners. Of note, an increase in sympathovagal balance may have been associated with a lower hedonic stimulation score, which may have met the learners' needs and prompted learning through the different video modules. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03501641; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03501641.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Learning through a 360° virtual reality (VR) or 2D video represents an alternative way to learn a complex medical education task. However, there is currently no consensus on how best to assess the effects of different learning materials on cognitive load estimates, heart rate variability (HRV), outcomes, and experience in learning history taking and physical examination (H&P) skills.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to investigate how learning materials (ie, VR or 2D video) impact learning outcomes and experience through changes in cognitive load estimates and HRV for learning H&P skills.
METHODS
METHODS
This pilot system-design study included 32 undergraduate medical students at an academic teaching hospital. The students were randomly assigned, with a 1:1 allocation, to a 360° VR video group or a 2D video group, matched by age, sex, and cognitive style. The contents of both videos were different with regard to visual angle and self-determination. Learning outcomes were evaluated using the Milestone reporting form. Subjective and objective cognitive loads were estimated using the Paas Cognitive Load Scale, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index, and secondary-task reaction time. Cardiac autonomic function was assessed using HRV measurements. Learning experience was assessed using the AttrakDiff2 questionnaire and qualitative feedback. Statistical significance was accepted at a two-sided P value of <.01.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All 32 participants received the intended intervention. The sample consisted of 20 (63%) males and 12 (38%) females, with a median age of 24 (IQR 23-25) years. The 360° VR video group seemed to have a higher Milestone level than the 2D video group (P=.04). The reaction time at the 10th minute in the 360° VR video group was significantly higher than that in the 2D video group (P<.001). Multiple logistic regression models of the overall cohort showed that the 360° VR video module was independently and positively associated with a reaction time at the 10th minute of ≥3.6 seconds (exp B=18.8, 95% CI 3.2-110.8; P=.001) and a Milestone level of ≥3 (exp B=15.0, 95% CI 2.3-99.6; P=.005). However, a reaction time at the 10th minute of ≥3.6 seconds was not related to a Milestone level of ≥3. A low-frequency to high-frequency ratio between the 5th and 10th minute of ≥1.43 seemed to be inversely associated with a hedonic stimulation score of ≥2.0 (exp B=0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.68; P=.015) after adjusting for video module. The main qualitative feedback indicated that the 360° VR video module was fun but caused mild dizziness, whereas the 2D video module was easy to follow but tedious.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our preliminary results showed that 360° VR video learning may be associated with a better Milestone level than 2D video learning, and that this did not seem to be related to cognitive load estimates or HRV indexes in the novice learners. Of note, an increase in sympathovagal balance may have been associated with a lower hedonic stimulation score, which may have met the learners' needs and prompted learning through the different video modules.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03501641; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03501641.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34813485
pii: v9i4e13124
doi: 10.2196/13124
pmc: PMC8663656
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03501641']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e13124Informations de copyright
©Yi-Ping Chao, Hai-Hua Chuang, Li-Jen Hsin, Chung-Jan Kang, Tuan-Jen Fang, Hsueh-Yu Li, Chung-Guei Huang, Terry B J Kuo, Cheryl C H Yang, Hsin-Yih Shyu, Shu-Ling Wang, Liang-Yu Shyu, Li-Ang Lee. Originally published in JMIR Serious Games (https://games.jmir.org), 22.11.2021.
Références
Am J Surg. 2020 Sep;220(3):620-629
pubmed: 32107012
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Aug 22;19(1):318
pubmed: 31438934
JMIR Med Educ. 2018 Apr 12;4(1):e9
pubmed: 29650503
Int J Psychophysiol. 2014 Feb 15;:
pubmed: 24534823
Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 11;9(1):14668
pubmed: 31604964
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 31;13(4):e126
pubmed: 22209829
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2002;7(2):85-97
pubmed: 12075142
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Dec 19;19(12):e419
pubmed: 29258975
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Feb 13;20(2):e56
pubmed: 29439943
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 01;11(2):e0148060
pubmed: 26828365
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Nov 13;15(11):e241
pubmed: 24225171
Surg Innov. 2005 Mar;12(1):80-90
pubmed: 15846451
Stud Health Technol Inform. 1997;39:467-72
pubmed: 10168941
Adv Simul (Lond). 2019 Nov 21;4:26
pubmed: 31832243
JMIR Med Educ. 2018 Mar 08;4(1):e8
pubmed: 29519776
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019;261:185-190
pubmed: 31156113
Front Psychol. 2019 Feb 26;10:409
pubmed: 30863351
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Feb 19;18(2):e37
pubmed: 26895723
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2017 Jul;2017:3989-3992
pubmed: 29060771
Physiol Behav. 2019 Oct 1;209:112609
pubmed: 31295452
Behav Neurol. 2020 Mar 12;2020:5758038
pubmed: 32256856
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015 Dec;20(5):1237-53
pubmed: 25761454
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):85-93
pubmed: 20078759
Front Psychol. 2018 Sep 03;9:1564
pubmed: 30233452
Surg Clin North Am. 2016 Feb;96(1):71-88
pubmed: 26612021
Med Teach. 2018 Jul;40(7):684-689
pubmed: 29730952
Acad Med. 2012 Mar;87(3):308-19
pubmed: 22373623
Med Educ. 2015 Aug;49(8):805-14
pubmed: 26152492
Eur Heart J. 1996 Mar;17(3):354-81
pubmed: 8737210
J Exp Neurosci. 2014 Mar 02;8:7-14
pubmed: 25161366
Circulation. 1996 Mar 1;93(5):1043-65
pubmed: 8598068
Laryngoscope. 2010 Nov;120(11):2177-82
pubmed: 20824785
Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2005 Jun;23(3):178-81
pubmed: 16124892
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:2957-60
pubmed: 25570611
Surg Endosc. 2020 Mar;34(3):1244-1252
pubmed: 31172325
J Grad Med Educ. 2014 Mar;6(1 Suppl 1):166-79
pubmed: 24701280
Med Educ. 2012 Nov;46(11):1055-62
pubmed: 23078682
Methods Inf Med. 2004;43(1):60-5
pubmed: 15026839
MedEdPORTAL. 2021 Mar 2;17:11106
pubmed: 33768143
Games Health J. 2020 Dec;9(6):405-414
pubmed: 32074463
Acad Med. 2002 May;77(5):361-7
pubmed: 12010689
Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676-82
pubmed: 20662580
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Mar 01;13(1):e29
pubmed: 21447471
BMJ. 1998 Apr 18;316(7139):1236-8
pubmed: 9553006
Perspect Med Educ. 2015 Jun;4(3):107-9
pubmed: 26016430
Auris Nasus Larynx. 2007 Sep;34(3):303-6
pubmed: 17336009
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014 Sep;34(5):502-8
pubmed: 24697967
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jan 22;21(1):e12959
pubmed: 30668519
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Sep 14;5(9):e139
pubmed: 28912113
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 15;366(11):1051-6
pubmed: 22356262
Front Public Health. 2017 Sep 28;5:258
pubmed: 29034226
Int J Surg. 2018 Jun;54(Pt A):24-27
pubmed: 29649669
JMIR Serious Games. 2017 May 10;5(2):e10
pubmed: 28490419
Hu Li Za Zhi. 2017 Dec;64(6):12-18
pubmed: 29164542
J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2018 Jul;6(3):123-129
pubmed: 30013996
IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2015 Sep-Oct;35(5):34-41
pubmed: 26416360
Biol Psychol. 2016 Dec;121(Pt A):62-73
pubmed: 27725244
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018 Jul;2018:2768-2771
pubmed: 30440975
Contemp Educ Psychol. 1998 Jan;23(1):90-108
pubmed: 9514690
Hum Factors. 2011 Jun;53(3):308-19
pubmed: 21830515
J Med Internet Res. 2015 Oct 19;17(10):e236
pubmed: 26481772
Percept Mot Skills. 1994 Aug;79(1 Pt 2):419-30
pubmed: 7808878
Med Eng Phys. 2017 Feb;40:103-109
pubmed: 28100405
Behav Brain Res. 2014 Feb 1;259:16-23
pubmed: 24184083
J Grad Med Educ. 2014 Mar;6(1 Suppl 1):162-5
pubmed: 24701279
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2017 Dec;26(6):346-354
pubmed: 28486087
Med Educ. 2006 Jun;40(6):576-83
pubmed: 16700774
Psychiatry Investig. 2018 Mar;15(3):235-245
pubmed: 29486547
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Dec;93(3):263-72
pubmed: 15338220
Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2015;126:260-70
pubmed: 26330687
J Med Educ. 1981 Jul;56(7):565-71
pubmed: 7241554
Surg Endosc. 2018 Oct;32(10):4200-4208
pubmed: 29603003