Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Versatile mixed reality medical educational spaces; requirement analysis from expert users

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Education has tapped into gaming to increase engagement and facilitate knowledge retention through experiential modalities. There have been several high technological intensity digital laboratories where learners are engaged with the subject matter through various activities. There are also several low intensity web-based solutions that familiarize learners with curriculum material but in less experientially intensive manners. A ubiquitous approach to highly impactful, low cost, high reusability gamified educational approach is a versatile mixed reality educational environment. Using prolific technologies such as inexpensive augmented reality (AR) headsets and a versatile low maintenance database (DB) back-ends, a real-world environment can be transformed with 3D graphics and audio to various educational spaces of highly impactful content. Such a simple implementation is presented here for virtual patients in medicine. A simple DB back-end supports a presentation front-end developed in Unity, utilizing the “vuforia”-mixed reality platform. Based on this implementation, future directions are explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Young MF, Slota S, Cutter RB, Jalette G, Mullin G, Lai B, Yukhymenko M et al (2012) Our princess is in another castle: a review of trends in serious gaming for education. Rev Educ Res 82(1):61. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312436980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Csikszentmihalyi M, Csikzentmihaly M (1991) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. vol. 41, HarperPerennial

  3. Birk M, Mandryk RL (2013) Control your game-self. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470752

  4. Deterding S, Dixon D, Khaled R, Nacke L (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

  5. Zhang T, Moore W, Gu X, Chu TL, Gao Z (2016) Promoting children’s physical activity in physical education: the role of active video gaming, JTRM Kinesiol

  6. Konstantinidis EI, Billis AS, Mouzakidis CA, Zilidou VI, Antoniou PE, Bamidis PD (2016) Design, implementation and wide pilot deployment of fitforall: an easy to use exergaming platform improving physical fitness and life quality of senior citizens. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2014.2378814

  7. Economou D, Doumanis I, Pedersen F, Kathrani P, Mentzelopoulos M, Bouki V (2015) Evaluation of a dynamic role-playing platform for simulations based on octalysis gamification framework

  8. Chou Y Octalysis; complete gamification framework

  9. Schittek M, Mattheos N, Lyon HC, Attström R (2001) COmputer assisted learning. A review. Eur J Dent Educ 5(3):93. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0579.2001.050301.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fry H, Ketteridge S, Marshall S A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: enhancing academic practice, 3rd edn

  11. Downes S (2001) Distance educators before the river styx. Technol Source

  12. Kaldoudi E, Konstantinidis S, Bamidis PD. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-777-0.ch007

  13. Ellaway R, Candler C, Greene P, Smothers V (2006) An architectural model for medbiquitous virtual patients

  14. Ellaway R, Poulton T, Fors U, McGee JB, Albright S (2008) Building a virtual patient commons. Med Teach 30(2):170. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701874074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Poulton T, Balasubramaniam C (2011) Virtual patients: a year of change. Med Teach 33(11):933. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.613501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ellaway RH (2010) OpenLabyrinth: an abstract pathway-based serious game engine for professional education. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDIM.2010.5664241

  17. Openlabyrinth user guide.[online]. available: http://openlabyrinth.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/openlabyrinth-v3-user-guide.docx. [accessed: 02-jul-2017

  18. Antoniou PE, Athanasopoulou CA, Dafli E, Bamidis PD (2014) Exploring design requirements for repurposing dental virtual patients from the web to second life: a focus group study. J Med Internet Res 16(6):e151. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Boulos MNK, Hetherington L, Wheeler S (2007) Second life: an overview of the potential of 3-D virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Inf Libr J 24(4):233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00733.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bell MW (2008) Toward a definition of virtual worlds. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 1(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  21. Scheckler RK (2003) Virtual labs: a substitute for traditional labs?. Int J Dev Biol 47(2-3):231

    Google Scholar 

  22. Makransky G, Bonde MT, Wulff JSG, Wandall J, Hood M, Creed PA, Nørremølle A et al (2016) Simulation based virtual learning environment in medical genetics counseling: an example of bridging the gap between theory and practice in medical education. BMC Med Educ 16(1):98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0620-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. de Jong T, Linn MC, Zacharia ZC (2013) Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 340(6130):305. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Weller JM (2004) Simulation in undergraduate medical education: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. Med Educ 38(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2004.01739.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chiu JL , DeJaegher CJ, Chao J (2015) The effects of augmented virtual science laboratories on middle school students understanding of gas properties. Comput Educ 85:59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dede C (2009) Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science 323(5910):66. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Klopfer E, Squire K (2008) Environmental detectives—the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educ Technol Res Dev 56(2):203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dunleavy M, Dede C, Mitchell R (2009) Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J Sci Educ Technol 18(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wu HK, Wen S Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education

  30. Olympiou G, Zacharia ZC (2012) Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: an effort to improve students conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Sci Educ 96(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Antoniou PE, Ioannidis L, Bamidis PD (2015) OSCase: a data scheme for transfer of web based virtual patients to opensim. In: op pro ernatio ent en, vol 6, p 228

  32. Drever E, Scottish Council for Research in Education (1995) Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research: A teacher’s guide. Edinburgh: SCRE

  33. Longhurst R Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key methods in geography 117–132

  34. Whiting LS (2008) Semi-structured interviews: guidance for novice researchers. Nurs Stand 22(23):35. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns2008.02.22.23.35.c6420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Masters K (2011) A brief guide to understanding MOOCs. Internet J Med Educ 1(2):1

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cook DA, Triola MM (2009) Virtual patients: a critical literature review and proposed next steps. Med Educ 43(4):303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03286.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Akçayir M, Akçayir G, Pektaş HM, Ocak MA (2016) Augmented reality in science laboratories: the effects of augmented reality on university students’ laboratory skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Comput Hum Behav 57:334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cai S, Wang X, Chiang FK (2014) A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Comput Hum Behav 37:31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chen CM, Tsai YN (2012) Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools. Comput Educ 59(2):638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fulantelli G, Taibi D, Arrigo M (2015) A framework to support educational decision making in mobile learning. Comput Hum Behav 47:50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Chin J, Callaghan V (2013) Educational living labs: a novel internet-of-things based approach to teaching and research. https://doi.org/10.1109/IE.2013.48

  42. Bergvall-Kåreborn B, Ståhlbröst A (2009) Living Lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development 1(4):356. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Greve K, Martinez V, Jonas J, Neely A, Möslein K Facilitating co-creation in living labs: the JOSEPHS study

  44. Ogunnaike OO, Borishade TT, Jeje OE (2014) Customer relationship management approach and student satisfaction in higher education marketing. J Compet 6(3):49

    Google Scholar 

  45. Appleton JJ, Christenson SL, Kim D, Reschly AL (2006) Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument. J Sch Psychol 44(5):427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Brooke J (1996) SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189(194):4–7

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Physics Laboratory, Medical School Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Panagiotis E. Antoniou, Eleni Dafli, George Arfaras & Panagiotis D. Bamidis

Authors
  1. Panagiotis E. Antoniou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eleni Dafli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. George Arfaras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Panagiotis D. Bamidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Panagiotis E. Antoniou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antoniou, P.E., Dafli, E., Arfaras, G. et al. Versatile mixed reality medical educational spaces; requirement analysis from expert users. Pers Ubiquit Comput 21, 1015–1024 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1074-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1074-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation