Comparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3D plastic anatomical model

Abstract Background 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 lear...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Shin-Yun Chen, Daniel Salcedo, Bu-Yuan Hsiao, Wen-Cheng Huang, Bor-Chyuan Su, Jiun-Lin Horng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2025-05-01
Series:BMC Medical Education
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07397-z
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849687896318017536
author Shin-Yun Chen
Daniel Salcedo
Bu-Yuan Hsiao
Wen-Cheng Huang
Bor-Chyuan Su
Jiun-Lin Horng
author_facet Shin-Yun Chen
Daniel Salcedo
Bu-Yuan Hsiao
Wen-Cheng Huang
Bor-Chyuan Su
Jiun-Lin Horng
author_sort Shin-Yun Chen
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background 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. Objective This study aimed to compare the learning outcomes of first-year anatomy students using either VR or plastic 3D models for anatomical instruction. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.
format Article
id doaj-art-bf45be0a82b24c2e9a0ef620f6868ad9
institution DOAJ
issn 1472-6920
language English
publishDate 2025-05-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series BMC Medical Education
spelling doaj-art-bf45be0a82b24c2e9a0ef620f6868ad92025-08-20T03:22:12ZengBMCBMC Medical Education1472-69202025-05-0125111010.1186/s12909-025-07397-zComparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3D plastic anatomical modelShin-Yun Chen0Daniel Salcedo1Bu-Yuan Hsiao2Wen-Cheng Huang3Bor-Chyuan Su4Jiun-Lin Horng5Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical UniversityCenter for Interprofessional Engagement and Simulation, Belmont UniversityDivision of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Taipei Medical University HospitalDepartment of Emergency, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical UniversityDepartment of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical UniversityDepartment of Anatomy and Cell Biology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical UniversityAbstract Background 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. Objective This study aimed to compare the learning outcomes of first-year anatomy students using either VR or plastic 3D models for anatomical instruction. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07397-zPlastic anatomical modelCooperative learningVirtual realityAnatomical structure
spellingShingle Shin-Yun Chen
Daniel Salcedo
Bu-Yuan Hsiao
Wen-Cheng Huang
Bor-Chyuan Su
Jiun-Lin Horng
Comparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3D plastic anatomical model
BMC Medical Education
Plastic anatomical model
Cooperative learning
Virtual reality
Anatomical structure
title Comparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3D plastic anatomical model
title_full Comparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3D plastic anatomical model
title_fullStr Comparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3D plastic anatomical model
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3D plastic anatomical model
title_short Comparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3D plastic anatomical model
title_sort comparison of cooperative learning through use of an immersive virtual reality anatomy model and a 3d plastic anatomical model
topic Plastic anatomical model
Cooperative learning
Virtual reality
Anatomical structure
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07397-z
work_keys_str_mv AT shinyunchen comparisonofcooperativelearningthroughuseofanimmersivevirtualrealityanatomymodelanda3dplasticanatomicalmodel
AT danielsalcedo comparisonofcooperativelearningthroughuseofanimmersivevirtualrealityanatomymodelanda3dplasticanatomicalmodel
AT buyuanhsiao comparisonofcooperativelearningthroughuseofanimmersivevirtualrealityanatomymodelanda3dplasticanatomicalmodel
AT wenchenghuang comparisonofcooperativelearningthroughuseofanimmersivevirtualrealityanatomymodelanda3dplasticanatomicalmodel
AT borchyuansu comparisonofcooperativelearningthroughuseofanimmersivevirtualrealityanatomymodelanda3dplasticanatomicalmodel
AT jiunlinhorng comparisonofcooperativelearningthroughuseofanimmersivevirtualrealityanatomymodelanda3dplasticanatomicalmodel