3D Virtual Reality vs. 2D Desktop Registration User Interface Comparison
Andreas Bueckle, Kilian Buehling, Patrick C. Shih, Katy Borner

TL;DR
This study compares 3D VR and 2D desktop interfaces for tissue registration tasks, finding VR setups improve speed and rotation accuracy but not position accuracy, based on a user study with 42 participants.
Contribution
It introduces and evaluates VR-based registration interfaces, demonstrating their advantages over traditional 2D interfaces in surgical tissue registration tasks.
Findings
VR interfaces are about three times faster than 2D desktop.
VR users have approximately one-third better rotation accuracy.
No significant difference in position accuracy across setups.
Abstract
Working with organs and extracted tissue blocks is an essential task in surgery and anatomy environments. To prepare specimens from human donors for analysis, wet-bench workers must dissect human tissue and collect metadata for downstream analysis, including information about the spatial origin of tissue. The Registration User Interface (RUI) was developed to allow stakeholders in the Human Biomolecular Atlas Program (HuBMAP) to register tissue blocks, i.e., to record the size, position, and orientation of human tissue data with regard to reference organs. In this paper, we compare three setups for registering one 3D tissue block object to another 3D reference organ (target) object. The first setup is a 2D Desktop implementation featuring a traditional screen, mouse, and keyboard interface. The remaining setups are both virtual reality (VR) versions of the RUI: VR Tabletop, where users…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
