Immersive Visualization of 3D Protein Structures for Bioscience Students

  • Tetsuri InoueEmail author
  • Kazutake Uehira
  • Ayumi Koike
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 827)


We have developed a visualization software to display protein structures in 3D on high-performance head-mounted displays (HMDs). This software aims to support students studying bioscience in understanding protein structures easily and rapidly. An experiment was conducted to examine how the immersive HMD visualization could enhance students’ understanding of protein structures and raise their interest and motivation for learning. In the experiment, we compared 2D visualization of the 3D structures designed for desktop computers with 3D visualization designed for an immersive VR environment using high-performance HMDs. The results showed that students understood the protein structures after participating in the HMD observation better than after the observation on the desktop computers. When participating in the immersive VR environment, students had the feeling that they were actually inside the protein molecules. They viewed the 3D molecules as if they were real objects in front of them and tried to grab them. These results indicate that immersive visualization of 3D protein structures is effective for improving students’ understanding.


Immersive visualization HMD Bioscience education 



This research is supported by the MEXT (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan) Supported Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities (No. S1511019L).


  1. 1.
    Zajtchuk R, Satava RM (1997) Medical Applications of Virtual Reality. Commun ACM 40(9):63–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-khalifah AH, McCrindle RJ, Sharkey PM, Alexandrov VN (2006) Using virtual reality for medical diagnosis, training and education. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality & Assoc. Tech, pp 193–200Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shibata T, Lee J, Inoue T (2014) Ergonomic approaches to designing educational materials for immersive multi-projection system. In: Proceedings of SPIE 9012, Engineering Reality of Virtual Reality 2014: 90120Q1-8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Inoue T, Shibata T (2015) Evaluation of visual fatigue and sense of presence for CAVE-like multi-projection display. In: Lindgaard G, Moore D (eds) Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, No 670Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cruz-Neira C, Sandin DJ, DeFanti TA (1993) Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the CAVE. In: Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH 1993, pp 135–142Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slater M, Usoh M, Steed A (1994) Depth of presence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ 3:130–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akkiraju N, Edelsbrunner H, Fu P, Qian J (1996) Viewing geometric protein structures from inside a CAVE. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 16(4):58–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Limniou M, Roberts D, Papadopoulos N (2008) Full immersive virtual environment CAVETM in chemistry education. J Comput Educ 51(2):584–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moritz E, Meyer J (2004) Interactive 3D protein structure visualization using virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Symposium on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering 2004Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salvadori A, Gianluca FD, Pagliai M, Mancini G, Barone V (2016) Immersive virtual reality in computational chemistry: Applications to the analysis of QM and MM data. Quantum Chem 116(22):1731–1746CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kanagawa Institute of TechnologyAtsugiJapan

Personalised recommendations