Evaluation of properties and usability of virtual reality interaction techniques in craniomaxillofacial computer-assisted surgical simulation
Pages 306 - 315
Abstract
Although there are promising results from the use of virtual reality (VR) in the craniomaxillofacial field, there is still a need to validate the usability and properties of the VR environment and interaction techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of VR interaction methods for craniomaxillofacial computer-assisted surgical simulation (CASS) and to identify possible areas for improvement.
Four VR interaction conditions were compared quantitatively and qualitatively: Hand, Mouse, Pen and, Controller. Four oral and maxillofacial radiologists performed a VR marking task on skull stereolithography models. Quantitative measures included accuracy, completion time, number of grasps and development. Qualitative attributes were easiness, efficiency, physical effort, accuracy, and naturalness.
Mouse (1,51 mm) and Controller (1,73 mm) were the most accurate, Pen was the close third (2,06 mm), while Hand (4,52 mm) scored poorly. Mouse was slower and more burdensome than the other conditions. The accuracy of Pen and the completion times of Hand, Pen and Mouse improved over time. The usability of Controller (1,50) was rated best in Likert scale (1-5), with Pen (1,75) the close second. Mouse (3,00) and Hand (3,57) were inferior, and overall, Hand was the least preferred.
Controller and Mouse achieved acceptable accuracy for craniomaxillofacial CASS. The usability of Controller was also rated highest, and it was the preferred choice of the radiologists. The combination of Mouse and VR was unnatural and cumbersome. To achieve an acceptable level of accuracy for Hand, hand tracking technology needs to be significantly improved.
References
[1]
Mariusz Wrzosek, Zachary Peacock, Amir Laviv, BR Goldwaser, R Ortiz, CM Resnick, MJ Troulis, and LB Kaban. 2016. Comparison of time required for traditional versus virtual orthognathic surgery treatment planning. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 45, 9 (2016), 1065–1069.
[2]
Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Diana L. Miglioretti, Eric Johnson, Choonsik Lee, Heather Spencer Feigelson, Michael Flynn, Robert T. Greenlee, Randell L. Kruger, Mark C. Hornbrook, Douglas Roblin, Leif I. Solberg, Nicholas Vanneman, Sheila Weinmann, and Andrew E. Williams. 2012. Use of Diagnostic Imaging Studies and Associated Radiation Exposure for Patients Enrolled in Large Integrated Health Care Systems, 1996-2010. JAMA 307, 22 (June 2012).
[3]
Georgios Sakas. 2002. Trends in medical imaging: from 2D to 3D. Computers & Graphics 26, 4 (August 2002), 577–587.
[4]
Daniel Mendes, Fabio Caputo, Andrea Giachetti, Alfredo Ferreira, and J. Jorge. 2019. A Survey on 3D Virtual Object Manipulation: From the Desktop to Immersive Virtual Environments. Computer Graphics Forum 38, 1 (February 2019), 21–45.
[5]
Hsiu-Hsia Lin and Lun-Jou Lo. 2015. Three-dimensional computer-assisted surgical simulation and intraoperative navigation in orthognathic surgery: A literature review. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 114, 4 (April 2015), 300–307.
[6]
Ali Alkhayer, József Piffkó, Carsten Lippold, and Emil Segatto. 2020. Accuracy of virtual planning in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review. Head Face Med 16, 1 (December 2020), 34.
[7]
James J. Xia, Jaime Gateno, John F. Teichgraeber, Andrew M. Christensen, Robert E. Lasky, Jeremy J. Lemoine, and Michael A.K. Liebschner. 2007. Accuracy of the Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation (CASS) System in the Treatment of Patients with Complex Craniomaxillofacial Deformity: A Pilot Study. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 65, 2 (February 2007), 248–254.
[8]
James J. Xia, Liza Shevchenko, Jaime Gateno, John F. Teichgraeber, Terry D. Taylor, Robert E. Lasky, Jeryl D. English, Chung H. Kau, and Kathleen R. McGrory. 2011. Outcome Study of Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation in the Treatment of Patients with Craniomaxillofacial Deformities. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 69, 7 (July 2011), 2014–2024.
[9]
Warit Powcharoen, Wei-fa Yang, Kar Yan Li, Wangyong Zhu, and Yu-xiong Su. 2019. Computer-Assisted versus Conventional Freehand Mandibular Reconstruction with Fibula Free Flap: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 144, 6 (December 2019), 1417–1428.
[10]
Sophie Bartier, O. Mazzaschi, L. Benichou, and E. Sauvaget. 2021. Computer-assisted versus traditional technique in fibular free-flap mandibular reconstruction: A CT symmetry study. European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases 138, 1 (January 2021), 23–27.
[11]
Léonard Bergeron, Michelle Bonapace-Potvin, and François Bergeron. 2021. In-house 3D Model Printing for Acute Cranio-maxillo-facial Trauma Surgery: Process, Time, and Costs. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open 9, 9 (September 2021), e3804.
[12]
Benjamin Palla and Nicholas Callahan. 2021. Does the Use of Computer-Assisted Surgery Affect the Margin Status in Resections of Ameloblastoma? Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 79, 7 (July 2021), 1467–1473.
[13]
Jaime Gateno, James J. Xia, John F. Teichgraeber, Andrew M. Christensen, Jeremy J. Lemoine, Michael A.K. Liebschner, Michael J. Gliddon, and Michaelanne E. Briggs. 2007. Clinical Feasibility of Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation (CASS) in the Treatment of Complex Cranio-Maxillofacial Deformities. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 65, 4 (April 2007), 728–734.
[14]
Harry Schwartz. 2014. Does computer-aided surgical simulation improve efficiency in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery? International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 43, 5 (May 2014), 572–576.
[15]
Thiago de Santana Santos, Keylla Marinho Albuquerque, Marconi Eduardo Sousa Maciel Santos, and José Rodrigues Laureano Filho. 2012. Survey on Complications of Orthognathic Surgery Among Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons: Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 23, 5 (September 2012), e423–e430.
[16]
Kari Panula, Kaj Finne, and Kyösti Oikarinen. 2001. Incidence of complications and problems related to orthognathic surgery: A review of 655 patients. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 59, 10 (October 2001), 1128–1136.
[17]
D.C. Bowe, E.A. Gruber, and N.M.H. McLeod. 2016. Nerve injury associated with orthognathic surgery. Part 1: UK practice and motor nerve injuries. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 54, 4 (May 2016), 362–365.
[18]
N.M.H. McLeod and D.C. Bowe. 2016. Nerve injury associated with orthognathic surgery. Part 2: inferior alveolar nerve. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 54, 4 (May 2016), 366–371.
[19]
N.M.H. McLeod and D.C. Bowe. 2016. Nerve injury associated with orthognathic surgery. Part 3: lingual, infraorbital, and optic nerves. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 54, 4 (May 2016), 372–375.
[20]
Joël Ferri, Charles Druelle, Matthias Schlund, Nicolas Bricout, and Romain Nicot. 2019. Complications in orthognathic surgery: A retrospective study of 5025 cases. International Orthodontics 17, 4 (December 2019), 789–798.
[21]
Hugo C. Gómez-Tone, Jorge Martin-Gutierrez, John Bustamante-Escapa, and Paola Bustamante-Escapa. 2021. Spatial Skills and Perceptions of Space: Representing 2D Drawings as 3D Drawings inside Immersive Virtual Reality. Applied Sciences 11, 4 (February 2021), 1475.
[22]
Ivan E. Sutherland. 1968. A head-mounted three dimensional display. In Proceedings of the December 9-11, 1968, fall joint computer conference, part I on - AFIPS ’68 (Fall, part I), ACM Press, San Francisco, California, 757.
[23]
Mohd Javaid and Abid Haleem. 2020. Virtual reality applications toward medical field. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health 8, 2 (June 2020), 600–605.
[24]
Ashraf Ayoub and Yeshwanth Pulijala. 2019. The application of virtual reality and augmented reality in Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery. BMC Oral Health 19, 1 (December 2019), 238.
[25]
Ye-Joon Jo, Jun-Seok Choi, Jin Kim, Hyo-Joon Kim, and Seong-Yong Moon. 2021. Virtual Reality (VR) Simulation and Augmented Reality (AR) Navigation in Orthognathic Surgery: A Case Report. Applied Sciences 11, 12 (June 2021), 5673.
[26]
Hanna-Riikka Rantamaa, Jari Kangas, Sriram Kishore Kumar, Helena Mehtonen, Jorma Järnstedt, and Roope Raisamo. 2023. Comparison of a VR Stylus with a Controller, Hand Tracking, and a Mouse for Object Manipulation and Medical Marking Tasks in Virtual Reality. Applied Sciences 13, 4 (February 2023), 2251.
[27]
Federico Manuri, Federico Decataldo, Andrea Sanna and Paolo Brizzi. 2023. A Comparison of Two Interaction Paradigms for Training Low-Cost Automation Assembly in Virtual Environments. Information 14, 6 (June 2023), 340.
[28]
Duc-Minh Pham and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. 2019. Is the Pen Mightier than the Controller? A Comparison of Input Devices for Selection in Virtual and Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 35, 1–11.
[29]
Oğuzcan Ergün, Şahin Akın, İpek Gürsel Dino and Elif Surer. 2019. Architectural Design in Virtual Reality and Mixed Reality Environmenst: A Comparative Analysis. 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Osaka, Japan, 914-915.
[30]
Jari Kangas, Sriram Kishore Kumar, Helena Mehtonen, Jorma Järnstedt, and Roope Raisamo. 2022. Trade-Off between Task Accuracy, Task Completion Time and Naturalness for Direct Object Manipulation in Virtual Reality. MTI 6, 1 (January 2022), 6.
[31]
Pat Dugard. 2014. Randomization tests: A new gold standard? Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science 3, 1 (January 2014), 65–68.
[32]
Eugene Edgington, Eugene Edgington, and Patrick Onghena. 2007. Randomization Tests (0 ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
[33]
David C. Howell. 2013. Statistical methods for psychology (8. ed ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, Belmont, Calif.
[34]
Thomas E. Nichols and Andrew P. Holmes. 2002. Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples. Hum. Brain Mapp. 15, 1 (January 2002), 1–25.
[35]
Flavio Wellington da Silva Ferraz, Liogi Iwaki-Filho, Gustavo Nascimento de Souza-Pinto, Lilian Cristina Vessoni Iwaki, An Tien Li, and Mauricio de Almeida Cardoso. 2021. A comparative study of the accuracy between two computer-aided surgical simulation methods in virtual surgical planning. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 49, 2 (February 2021), 84–92.
[36]
Fabio Ritto, A.R.M. Schmitt, Thaís Pimentel, J.V. Canellas, and P.J. Medeiros. 2018. Comparison of the accuracy of maxillary position between conventional model surgery and virtual surgical planning. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 47, 2 (February 2018), 160–166.
[37]
Sam Sheng-Pin Hsu, Jaime Gateno, R. Bryan Bell, David L. Hirsch, Michael R. Markiewicz, John F. Teichgraeber, Xiaobo Zhou, and James J. Xia. 2013. Accuracy of a Computer-Aided Surgical Simulation Protocol for Orthognathic Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 71, 1 (January 2013), 128–142.
Recommendations
User-elicited dual-hand interactions for manipulating 3D objects in virtual reality environments
Virtual reality technologies (VR) have advanced rapidly in the last few years. Prime examples include the Oculus RIFT and HTC Vive that are both head-worn/mounted displays (HMDs). VR HMDs enable a sense of immersion and allow enhanced natural interaction ...
Computer-based virtual reality simulator for phacoemulsification cataract surgery training
Recent research in virtual reality indicates that computer-based simulators are an effective technology to use for surgeons learning to improve their surgical skills in a controlled environment. This article presents the development of a virtual reality ...
Virtual Reality Interaction Techniques for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Virtual, Augmented, and Intelligent Environments
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
December 2023
733 pages
ISBN:9798400717079
DOI:10.1145/3638380
Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 10 May 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
OzCHI 2023
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 362 of 729 submissions, 50%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 65Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)65
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)27
Reflects downloads up to 23 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatGet Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in