Chen Shin-Yun, Salcedo Daniel, Hsiao Bu-Yuan, Huang Wen-Cheng, Su Bor-Chyuan, Horng Jiun-Lin
Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, 11031, Taiwan.
Center for Interprofessional Engagement and Simulation, Belmont University, Nashville, TN, USA.
BMC Med Educ. 2025 May 30;25(1):807. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07397-z.
Traditional anatomy education relies on lectures, visual aids, and cadaver dissections. However, limited cadaver availability often necessitates the use of plastic models to aid 3D understanding. Virtual reality (VR) presents an immersive alternative that may enhance spatial learning without requiring cadavers. Despite its potential, few studies have directly compared VR with traditional methods in anatomy education.
This study aimed to compare the learning outcomes of first-year anatomy students using either VR or plastic 3D models for anatomical instruction.
First-year anatomy students were divided into two groups: one using VR and the other using plastic models. They participated in weekly anatomy sessions consisting of 2-hour lectures followed by 2-hour laboratory sessions covering various anatomical systems. After the lectures, students engaged in laboratory activities using either plastic models or immersive virtual reality (iVR) for 3D spatial anatomy learning, with iVR participants capturing screenshots of assigned targets for verification. Each session concluded with an online image-based multiple-choice quiz to assess anatomical identification and understanding.
Students from the Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences (NHS) and the Department of Medical Laboratory Science and Biotechnology (MLSB) at Taipei Medical University (TMU) participated in the study. Students in the VR group initially struggled due to the time required to adapt to the system, which was reflected in their significantly lower scores in week 2 for both NHS (80.35 ± 2.04 vs. 88.82 ± 1.64, p < 0.0019) and MLSB (72.23 ± 1.81 vs. 88.55 ± 1.67, p < 0.0001). However, in subsequent weeks, while iVR scores were slightly lower, the differences were not statistically significant, and by the later weeks, there was no significant difference in quiz performance between the two groups, with comparable scores observed in weeks 8 and 10 for NHS.
VR provides a viable alternative to plastic models for anatomy education. Although students require an adaptation period, their performance eventually matches that of students using traditional plastic models. This study is the first to quantitatively compare VR and plastic models in anatomy instruction.
传统解剖学教育依赖讲座、视觉教具和尸体解剖。然而，尸体供应有限常常使得有必要使用塑料模型来辅助三维理解。虚拟现实（VR）提供了一种沉浸式替代方案，可能无需尸体就能增强空间学习效果。尽管有其潜力，但在解剖学教育中，很少有研究直接将VR与传统方法进行比较。
本研究旨在比较使用VR或塑料3D模型进行解剖学教学的一年级解剖学学生的学习成果。
一年级解剖学学生被分为两组：一组使用VR，另一组使用塑料模型。他们参加每周的解剖学课程，包括2小时的讲座，随后是2小时涵盖各种解剖系统的实验室课程。讲座结束后，学生们使用塑料模型或沉浸式虚拟现实（iVR）进行实验室活动，以进行三维空间解剖学学习，iVR参与者需截取指定目标的屏幕截图以供验证。每节课最后进行一次基于图像的在线多项选择题测验，以评估解剖学识别和理解情况。
台北医学大学（TMU）营养与健康科学系（NHS）和医学检验科学与生物技术系（MLSB）的学生参与了该研究。VR组的学生最初因适应系统所需的时间而遇到困难，这反映在他们第2周的成绩上，NHS（80.35±2.04对88.82±1.64，p<0.0019）和MLSB（72.23±1.81对88.55±1.67，p<0.0001）的成绩均显著较低。然而，在随后的几周里，虽然iVR成绩略低，但差异无统计学意义，到后期，两组在测验表现上没有显著差异，NHS在第8周和第10周的成绩相当。
VR为解剖学教育提供了一种可行的替代塑料模型的方法。虽然学生需要一个适应期，但他们的表现最终与使用传统塑料模型的学生相当。本研究首次在解剖学教学中对VR和塑料模型进行了定量比较。
