↓ Skip to main content

Virtual Reality as an Educational and Training Tool for Medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
185 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
358 Mendeley
Title
Virtual Reality as an Educational and Training Tool for Medicine
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10916-018-0900-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Santiago González Izard, Juan A. Juanes, Francisco J. García Peñalvo, Jesús Mª Gonçalvez Estella, Mª José Sánchez Ledesma, Pablo Ruisoto

Abstract

Until very recently, we considered Virtual Reality as something that was very close, but it was still science fiction. However, today Virtual Reality is being integrated into many different areas of our lives, from videogames to different industrial use cases and, of course, it is starting to be used in medicine. There are two great general classifications for Virtual Reality. Firstly, we find a Virtual Reality in which we visualize a world completely created by computer, three-dimensional and where we can appreciate that the world we are visualizing is not real, at least for the moment as rendered images are improving very fast. Secondly, there is a Virtual Reality that basically consists of a reflection of our reality. This type of Virtual Reality is created using spherical or 360 images and videos, so we lose three-dimensional visualization capacity (until the 3D cameras are more developed), but on the other hand we gain in terms of realism in the images. We could also mention a third classification that merges the previous two, where virtual elements created by computer coexist with 360 images and videos. In this article we will show two systems that we have developed where each of them can be framed within one of the previous classifications, identifying the technologies used for their implementation as well as the advantages of each one. We will also analize how these systems can improve the current methodologies used for medical training. The implications of these developments as tools for teaching, learning and training are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 358 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 358 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 11%
Student > Bachelor 37 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 9%
Researcher 27 8%
Other 16 4%
Other 61 17%
Unknown 145 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 15%
Computer Science 33 9%
Engineering 26 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 5%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Other 60 17%
Unknown 157 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2020.
All research outputs
#17,929,042
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#772
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,571
of 440,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#19
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.