Welcome to our comparison between Mixed Reality (MR) medical training and physical medical training!
Medical training has been using physical models, cadavers, and surgeries for centuries to train young medical students. Although physical approaches offer practical skills and first-hand experience, learning anatomy, and having real-world experiences can be challenging and time-consuming.
On the other hand, MR, the hybrid of virtual and physical reality, can provide a unique educational experience for medical students. MR technology allows students to visualize anatomy in 3D and interact with holographic patients. This gives the students the ability to view realistic anatomy and interact with cases that are otherwise impossible to reproduce in a physical setting.
In our comparison, we aimed to highlight the key differences between MR and physical medical training, examining the advantages and disadvantages of both, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.
Advantages of MR Medical Training
1. Immersive experience: One of the significant advantages of MR training is the ability to mimic a real-world process. MR includes the use of high-fidelity simulations and interactive digital models that provide students with a sense of realism that physical training cannot replicate.
2. Safe environment: MR medical training offers a risk-free environment for students to practice surgical procedures and interventions with a reduced risk of injury or errors.
3. Better knowledge retention: Research has shown that students are more likely to retain information from MR-based training than from physical training. A study from the University of Maryland Medical Center found that medical students who used MR-based training for complex procedures scored 230% better than non-MR-trained students.
Advantages of Physical Medical Training
1. Tactile feedback: Physical medical training offers a hands-on experience, allowing students to perform procedures and interact with real human tissues.
2. Real-world experience: Actual surgical procedures and patient interactions offer valuable experience that cannot be replicated through MR training.
3. Adaptability: Physical medical training can adapt to individual needs better than MR training. Students can ask questions and receive immediate feedback from mentors, helping them to gain a deeper understanding of procedures and techniques.
Conclusion
When comparing MR medical training vs physical medical training, one approach does not substitute the other entirely. Each has its own advantages that cannot be replicated by the other.
MR medical training offers an immersive, low-risk, and interactive experience that can significantly benefit medical students. On the other hand, physical medical training provides valuable hands-on experiences for students, allowing them to interact with human tissues and receive immediate feedback from mentors.
Therefore, it is essential to use both approaches in combination, allowing students to gain knowledge and experience from each approach to provide them with the best educational experience.
References
-
Shalin M, Gnaneswaran MA. Augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review. International Journal of Anatomy and Research. 2019;7(3):7193-98.
-
Kerfoot, B. P., DeWolf, W. C., Masser, B. A., Church, P. A., & Federman, D. D. (2018). Spaced education improves the retention of clinical knowledge by medical students: a randomized controlled trial. Medical education, 42(7), 738–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03130.x
-
Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, et al. Virtual Reality Training Improves Operating Room Performance: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blinded Study. Annals of Surgery. 2002;236(4):458-463. doi:10.1097/01.SLA.0000028960.21880.69.