Advertisement

A Natural Interaction VR Environment for Surgical Instrumentation Training

  • Adalberto LopesEmail author
  • Antônio Harger
  • Felipe Breyer
  • Judith Kelner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10289)

Abstract

This paper details the process of prototyping a Surgical Instrumentation Simulator using Virtual Reality and a gesture-based natural interaction. Our prototype used a cost-efficient mobile headset along with a telephone screen for a stereoscopic display, thus creating a low-cost. We applied an iterative approach to our prototyping process, and user testing included both students and professionals from the Health field. Results showed proposed interactions techniques as satisfactory according to users. In addition, the low-cost hardware choice proved sufficient in quality to support an immersive experience.

Keywords

Interaction design HMD Natural user interfaces 

References

  1. 1.
    Anthes, C., Hernández, R., Weidemann, M., Kranzlmuller, D.: State of the art of virtual reality technology. In: 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference, At Big Sky, MT, USA (2016) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sony introduces a medical head mount display system for use in endoscopic surgery (2014). http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/press/pr-sony-head-mount. Sony
  3. 3.
    Google Cardboard saves baby’s life (2016). http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/07/health/google-cardboard-baby-saved/. CNN
  4. 4.
    Bowman, D.A., Kruijff, E., LaViola Jr., J.J., Poupyrev, I.: 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice. Addison-Wesley, Westford (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slater, M., Wilbur, S.: A, framework for immersive virtual environments: speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6(6), 603–616 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burdea, G., Coiffet, P.: Virtual Reality Technology. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diez, H., García, S., Mujika, A., Moreno, A., Oyarzun, D.: Virtual training of fire wardens through immersive 3D environments. In: Web3D 2016, Anaheiim, CA, USA, 22–24 July 2016Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorabiee, R., Bown, O., Sarkar, S., Tomitsch, M.: Back to the future: identifying interface trends from the past, present and future in immersive applications. In: OzCHI 2015, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 07–10 December 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, S., Nesbitt, K., Nalivaiko, E.: A systematic review of cybersickness. In: IE 2014, Newcastle, NSW, Australia (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Settgast, V., Pirker, J., Lontschar, S., Maggale, S., Gütl, C.: Evaluating experiences in different virtual reality setups. In: Wallner, G., Kriglstein, S., Hlavacs, H., Malaka, R., Lugmayr, A., Yang, H.-S. (eds.) ICEC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9926, pp. 115–125. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46100-7_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sauro, J., Lewis, J.R.: Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User. Elsevier, Waltham (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adalberto Lopes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antônio Harger
    • 1
  • Felipe Breyer
    • 2
  • Judith Kelner
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal de PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Instituto Federal de PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations