Anatomy training with real cadavers poses many practical problems for which new training and educational solutions have been developed making use of technologies based on real-time 3-D graphics. Although virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have been previously used in the medical field, it is not easy to select the right 3-D technology or setup for each particular problem. For this reason, this article presents a comprehensive comparative study with 82 participants between two different 3-D interactive setups: an optical-based AR setup, implemented with a Microsoft HoloLens device, and a semi-immersive setup based on a VR Table. Both setups are tested using an anatomy training software application. Our primary hypothesis is that there would be statistically significant differences between the use of the AR application and the use of the VR Table. Our secondary hypothesis is that user preference and recommendation for the VR setup would be higher than for the HoloLens-based system. After completing two different tasks with both setups, the participants filled two questionnaires about the use of the anatomy training application. Three objective measures are also recorded (time, number of movements, and a score). The results of the experiments show that more than two-thirds of the users prefer, recommend, and find more useful the VR setup. The results also show that there are statistically significant differences in the use of both systems in favor of the VR Table.

中文翻译：

---

用于解剖训练的虚拟现实台和基于 HoloLens 的增强现实系统的比较评估


使用真实尸体进行解剖训练会带来许多实际问题，针对这些问题，我们利用基于实时 3D 图形的技术开发了新的培训和教育解决方案。尽管虚拟现实 (VR) 和增强现实 (AR) 以前已用于医疗领域，但针对每个特定问题选择正确的 3D 技术或设置并不容易。因此，本文对 82 名参与者进行了两种不同 3D 交互设置的全面比较研究：使用 Microsoft HoloLens 设备实现的基于光学的 AR 设置，以及基于 VR 桌子的半沉浸式设置。两种设置均使用解剖培训软件应用程序进行测试。我们的主要假设是，AR 应用程序的使用和 VR 桌子的使用之间存在统计上的显着差异。我们的第二个假设是，用户对 VR 设置的偏好和推荐会高于基于 HoloLens 的系统。使用两种设置完成两项不同的任务后，参与者填写了两份有关解剖培训应用程序使用的调查问卷。还记录了三个客观指标（时间、动作次数和分数）。实验结果表明，超过三分之二的用户更喜欢、推荐并发现 VR 设置更有用。结果还表明，两种系统的使用在统计上存在显着差异，有利于 VR Table。