Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Useful, Usable and Used?

Challenges and Opportunities for Virtual Reality Surgical Trainers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Recent Advances in Technologies for Inclusive Well-Being

Part of the book series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library ((ISRL,volume 196))

Abstract

This chapter discusses design considerations in the development of virtual reality surgical training simulators in reference to a variety of case studies. The chapter presents a preliminary framework outlining research priorities and areas that have been suggested by previous researchers to help focus the design development of virtual reality applications. Elements of this framework are discussed in reference to the case studies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Riva, G.: Applications of virtual environments in medicine. Methods Inf. Med. 42(5), 524–534 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnston, C.L., Whatley, D: Pulse!!—A virtual learning space project. In: Haluck, R.S., Hoffman, H.M., Mogul, G.T., Phillips, R., Robb, R.A., Vosburgh, K.G., Westwood, J.D. (eds.) Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 14 Accelerating Change in Healthcare: Next Medical Toolkit, vol. 119. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Scerbo, M.W., Belfore, L.A., Garcia, H.M., Weireter, L.J., Jackson, M.W., Nalu, A., Baydogan, E., Bliss, J.P., Seevinck, J.: Virtual operating room for context-relevant training. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 507–511 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Neis, F., Brucker, S., Henes, M., Taran, F.A., Hoffmann, S., Wallwiener, M., Schönfisch, B., Ziegler, N., Larbig, A., Leon De Wilde, R.: Evaluation of the HystSimTM-virtual reality trainer: an essential additional tool to train hysteroscopic skills outside the operation theater. Surg. Endosc. 30(11), 4954–4961 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Satava, R.M., Jones, S.B.: In: Hale, K.S., Stanney, K.M. (eds.) Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Thawani, J.P., Ramayya, A.G., Abdullah, K.G., Hudgins, E., Vaughan, K., Piazza, M., Madsen, P.J., Buch, V., Sean Grady, M.: Resident simulation training in endoscopic endonasal surgery utilizing haptic feedback technology. J. Clin. Neurosci. 34, 112–116 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sankaranarayanan, G., Li, B., Manser, K., Jones, S.B., Jones, D.B., Schwaitzberg, S., Cao, C.G.L., Dea, S.: Face and construct validation of a next generation virtual reality (Gen2-VR©) surgical simulator. Surg. Endosc. 30(3), 979–985 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Milburn, J.A., Khera, G., Hornby, S.T., Malone, P.S.C., Fitzgerald, J.E.F.: Introduction, availability and role of simulation in surgical education and training: review of current evidence and recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training. Int. J. Surg. 10(8), 393–398 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Windsor, J.A.: Role of simulation in surgical education and training. ANZ J. Surg. 79(3), 127–132 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Motola, I., Devine, L.A., Chung, H.S., Sullivan, J.E., Issenberg, S.B.: Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. Med. Teach. 35(10), e1511–e1530 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hoogenes, J., Wong, N., Al-Harbi, B., Kim, K.S., Vij, S., Bolognone, E., Quantz, M., Guo, Y., Shayegan, B., Matsumoto, E.D.: A randomized comparison of 2 robotic virtual reality simulators and evaluation of trainees’ skills transfer to a simulated robotic urethrovesical anastomosis task. Urology 111, 110–115 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barsuk, J.H., McGaghie, W.C., Cohen, E.R., Balachandran, J.S., Wayne, D.B.: Use of simulation-based mastery learning to improve the quality of central venous catheter placement in a medical intensive care unit. J. Hospital Med. 4(7), 397–403 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Chaudhry, A.1., Sutton, C., Wood, J., Stone, R., McCloy, R., Ann R.: Learning rate for laparoscopic surgical skills on MIST VR, a virtual reality simulator: quality of human-computer interface. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 81(4), 281–286 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Huber, T., Wunderling, T., Paschold, M., Lang, H., Kneist, W., Hansen, C.: Highly immersive virtual reality laparoscopy simulation: development and future aspects. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 13(2), 281–290 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McGaghie, W.C., Issenberg, S.B, Petrusa, E.R., Scalese, R.J.: A critical review of simulation‐based medical education research: 2003–2009. 44(1), 50–63 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Preece, J.: Interaction Design—Beyond Human Computer Interaction, 3rd edn. Wiley, West Sussex (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Interaction Design Foundation: Useful, Usable, and Used: Why They Matter to Designers. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/useful-usable-and-used-why-they-matter-to-designers (2018)

  19. Tractinsky, N.: The usability construct: a dead end? Human-Comput. Interact. 33(2), 131–177 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Merriam Webster Dictionary: Useful. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/useful (2018)

  21. Cambridge Dictionary: Useful. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/useful (2018)

  22. Oxford Dictionary: Useful. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/useful (2018)

  23. Merriam Webster Dictionary: Usable. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usable (2018)

  24. Cambridge Dictionary: Usable. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/usable (2018)

  25. Oxford Dictionary: Usable. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/usable (2018)

  26. Merriam Webster Dictionary: Used. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/used (2018)

  27. Cambridge Dictionary: Used. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/used (2018)

  28. Oxford Dictionary: Used. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/used (2018)

  29. Merriam Webster Dictionary: Accepted. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accepted (2018)

  30. Cambridge Dictionary: Accepted. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/accepted (2018)

  31. Oxford Dictionary: Accepted. Retrieved on June 5th 2018 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/accepted (2018)

  32. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bowen, W.: The puny payoff from office computers. In: Forester, T. (ed.) Computers in the Human Context: Information Technology, Productivity, and People. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Patel, H., Sharples, S., Letourneur, S., Johansson, E., Hoffmann, H., Lorissone, J., Salua, D., Stefanif, O.: Practical evaluations of real user company needs for visualization technologies. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64(3), 267–279 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sinclair, M.A.: Participative assessment. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, N.E. (eds.) Evaluation of Human Work. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Shepherd, A., Stammers, R.B.: Task analysis. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, N.E. (eds.) Evaluation of Human Work. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sharples, S., Stemon, A.W., D’Cruz, M., Patel, H., Cobb, S., Yates, T., Saikayasit, R., Wilson, J.R.: Human factors of virtual reality—Where are we now? In: Pikaar, R.N., Koningsveld, E.A.P., Settels, P.J.M. (eds.) Meeting Diversity in Ergonomics. Elsevier, Oxford (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nichols, S., Haldane, C., Wilson, J.R.: Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 52(3), 471–491 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cobb, S.V.G., Nichols, S., Ramsey, A., Wilson, J.R.: Virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects (VRISE). Presence 8(2), 169–186 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Slater, M.: Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 3549–3557 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Draper, J.V., Kaber, D.B., Usher, J.M.: Speculations on the value of telepresence. Cyber Psychol. Behav. 2(4), 349–362 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Slater M (n.d.) Notes on Presence. Retrieved March 1, 2014 from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.100.3517&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  43. Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3), 225–240 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Slater, M.: Measuring presence: a response to the witmer and singer presence questionnaire. Presence 8(5), 560–565 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Stanney, K.M., Mourant, R.R., Kennedy, R.S.: Human factors issues in virtual environments: a review of the literature. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 7(4), 327–351 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Cao, C.G., Zhou, M., Jones, D.B., Schwaitzberg, S.D.: Can surgeons think and operate with haptics at the same time? J. Gastrointest. Surg. 11(11), 1564–1569 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Delp, S.L., Loan, P., Basdogan, C., Rosen, J.M.: Surgical simulation: an emerging technology for training in emergency medicine. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 6(2), 147–159 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kaber, D.B., Zhang, T.: Human factors in virtual reality system design for mobility and haptic task performance. Rev. Hum. Fact. Ergon. 7(1), 323–366 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kanumuri, P., Ganai, S., Wohaibi, E.M., Bush, R.W., Grow, D.R., Seymour, N.E.: virtual reality and computer-enhanced training devices equally improve laparoscopic surgical skill in novices. J. Soc. Laparoendsc. Surg. 12(3), 219–226 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Panait, L., Akkary, E., Bell, R.L., Roberts, K.E., Dudrick, S.J., Duffy, A.J.: The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. J. Surg. Res. 156(2), 312–316 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bajka, M., Tuchschmid, S., Streich, M., Fink, D., Szekely, G., Harders, M.: Evaluation of a new virtual-reality training simulator for hysteroscopy. Surg. Endosc. 23(9), 2026–2033 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lemole, G.M., Banerjee, P.P., Luciano, C.: Virtual reality in neurosurgical education: part-task ventriculostomy simulation with dynamic visual and haptic feedback. Neurosurgery 61(1), 142–148 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Neubauer, A., Wolfsberger, S.: Virtual endoscopy in neurosurgery: a review. Neurosurgery 72(Suppl 1), 97–106 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Schulze, F., Bühler, K., Neubauer, A.: Intra-operative virtual endoscopy for image guided endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 5(2), 143–154 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Choudhury, N., Gélinas-Phaneuf, N., Delorme, S.: Fundamentals of neurosurgery: virtual reality tasks for training and evaluation of technical skills. World Neurosurg. 80(5), e9-19 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cohen, A.R., Lohani, S., Manjila, S., Natsupakpong, S., Brown, N., Cavusoglu, M.C.: Virtual reality simulation: basic concepts and use in endoscopic neurosurgery training. Child’s Nervous Syst. 29(8), 1235–1244 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rosseau, G., Bailes, J., del Maestro, R., Cabral, A., Choudhury, N., Comas, O., Debergue, P., De Luca, G., Hovdebo, J., Jiang, D., Laroche, D., Neubauer, A., Pazos, V., Thibault, F., Diraddo, R.: The development of a virtual simulator for training neurosurgeons to perform and perfect endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery. Neurosurgery 73(Suppl 1), 85–93 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Pheasant, S., Haslegrave, M.: Bodyspace. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zheng, B., Martinec, D.V., Cassera, M.A., Swanström, L.L.: A quantitative study of disruption in the operating room during laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Surg. Endosc. 22(10), 2171–2177 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Cobb, S.V.G., Nichols, S., Ramsey, A., Wilson, J.R.: Virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects (VRISE). Presence 8(2), 169–186 (April 1999). https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566152

  61. Nichols, S., Haldane, C., Wilson, J.R.: Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 52(3), 471–491 (2002). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1071581999903439

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering and Design, School of Industrial Design, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada

    Chantal M. J. Trudel

Authors
  1. Chantal M. J. Trudel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chantal M. J. Trudel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aalborg University, Esbjerg, Denmark

    Anthony Lewis Brooks

  2. Computer Information Systems, Missouri State University, Spring Filed, MO, USA

    Sheryl Brahman

  3. maxSIMhealth, Ontario Tech University, Oshawa, ON, Canada

    Bill Kapralos

  4. SIM Advancement & Innovation, Simulation Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Amy Nakajima

  5. Trent/Fleming School of Nursing, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada

    Jane Tyerman

  6. KES International, Shoreham-by-Sea, UK

    Lakhmi C. Jain

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Trudel, C.M.J. (2021). Useful, Usable and Used?. In: Brooks, A.L., Brahman, S., Kapralos, B., Nakajima, A., Tyerman, J., Jain, L.C. (eds) Recent Advances in Technologies for Inclusive Well-Being. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol 196. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59608-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation