Virtual and Augmented Reality Direct Ophthalmoscopy Tool: A Comparison between Interactions Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct ophthalmoscopy (DO) is a medical procedure whereby a health professional, using a direct ophthalmoscope, examines the eye fundus. DO skills are in decline due to the use of interactive diagnostic equipment and insufficient practice with the direct ophthalmoscope. To address the loss of DO skills, physical and computer-based simulators have been developed to offer additional training. Among the computer-based simulations, virtual and augmented reality (VR and AR, respectively) allow simulated immersive and interactive scenarios with eye fundus conditions that are difficult to replicate in the classroom. VR and AR require employing 3D user interfaces (3DUIs) to perform the virtual eye examination. Using a combination of a between-subjects and within-subjects paradigm with two groups of five participants, this paper builds upon a previous preliminary usability study that compared the use of the HTC Vive controller, the Valve Index controller, and the Microsoft HoloLens 1 hand gesticulation interaction methods when performing a virtual direct ophthalmoscopy eye examination. The work described in this paper extends our prior work by considering the interactions with the Oculus Quest controller and Oculus Quest hand-tracking system to perform a virtual direct ophthalmoscopy eye examination while allowing us to compare these methods without our prior interaction techniques. Ultimately, this helps us develop a greater understanding of usability effects for virtual DO examinations and virtual reality in general. Although the number of participants was limited, n = 5 for Stage 1 (including the HTC Vive controller, the Valve Index controller, and the Microsoft HoloLens hand gesticulations), and n = 13 for Stage 2 (including the Oculus Quest controller and the Oculus Quest hand tracking), given the COVID-19 restrictions, our initial results comparing VR and AR 3D user interactions for direct ophthalmoscopy are consistent with our previous preliminary study where the physical controllers resulted in higher usability scores, while the Oculus Quest’s more accurate hand motion capture resulted in higher usability when compared to the Microsoft HoloLens hand gesticulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".