pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00389 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 💻 cs.HC

Play and Learn: Gamified Feedback for Ultrasound-Guided Catheter Insertion Training in Virtual Reality

Mohammad Raihanul Bashar , Alejandro Olivares Hernandez , Yahia Zine , Anil Ufuk Batmaz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 19:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords gamificationvirtual realitymedical trainingultrasound-guided catheter insertionformative feedbackusabilityworkloadprocedural simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gamified feedback in VR reduces task time and workload for ultrasound-guided catheter insertion training.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether adding game-style visual and auditory cues to a virtual reality simulator improves training outcomes for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion. The system uses progress indicators, alignment guidance, and rewards that match the steps of the actual procedure without changing its core sequence. Controlled studies with 24 novices and 12 clinicians found that the gamified version produced shorter completion times, higher usability scores, and lower reported workload for users at every experience level. Novices gained clearer sense of goals and greater confidence while experts achieved steadier pacing.

Core claim

Adding semantically aligned gamified feedback to a VR simulator for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion produces measurable gains in speed, usability, and reduced workload across novices and clinicians, while delivering clearer procedural goals to beginners and improved pacing to experts.

What carries the argument

Semantically aligned visual and auditory gamified feedback elements such as progress indicators, alignment guidance, and rewards integrated into the VR simulator while preserving the original procedural steps.

If this is right

  • Gamification supplies effective formative feedback inside VR medical training without breaking procedural fidelity.
  • Performance and experience gains appear for both novices and experienced users, though the nature of the gain differs by expertise.
  • Novices receive clearer goal direction and higher confidence while experts gain steadier pacing.
  • VR simulators can add motivational cues while keeping the underlying medical task unchanged.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the observed time and workload reductions translate to real procedures, gamified VR could shorten the path to procedural competence in medical education.
  • The approach could be tested on other ultrasound or image-guided interventions to see whether the same feedback pattern generalizes.
  • Long-term studies would be needed to check whether the short-term gains persist after training ends.

Load-bearing premise

That the added feedback elements do not distract from the procedure or change how well skills transfer from the VR session to real patient care.

What would settle it

A follow-up study that measures success rates and complication rates on actual patients for clinicians trained in the gamified VR simulator versus an otherwise identical non-gamified version.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00389 by Alejandro Olivares Hernandez, Anil Ufuk Batmaz, Mohammad Raihanul Bashar, Yahia Zine.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Technical setup of the VR ultrasound-guided PIVC view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gamified VR interface showing real-time ultrasound view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The landing-window alignment mechanism. (a) The view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the Study procedure. D. Results Data were preprocessed and visualized in JMP and analyzed in SPSS 29.0. Normality was assessed using skewness and kurtosis ±1; non-normal data were log-transformed. (a) (b) view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: NASA TLX results commparing GAMIFIED and STAN￾DARD conditions. in the GAMIFIED condition (Figure 6a). Table I summarizes SUS scores and usability grades. TABLE I: SUS Scores and Grades for two catheter insertion condition. Condition Score Grade Gamified 78.54 B Standard 58.13 D We observed significant differences across several SUS items between conditions (Figure 6b). Participants preferred the GAMIFIED c… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SUS scores (a) across conditions and (b) individual view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: PXI results for GAMIFIED and STANDARD conditions. icant effects favored the GAMIFIED condition ( view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: IT results for expert participants. (a) Mean IT by view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: PXI results comparing GAMIFIED and STANDARD conditions for expert participants. GAMIFIED condition. Overall, gamification produced a more balanced workload profile, indicating that even experts ben￾efited from structured feedback and progression cues during repetitive procedural tasks. PXI: Results indicate that gamification improved player experience, particularly on functional dimensions. Compared to ST… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NASA TLX results comparing GAMIFIED and STAN￾DARD conditions for expert participants. we observed significant difference for L2 (p < .022), L3 (p < .001), L4 (p < .023), and Post (p < .022), indicating gamification benefits in later stages. SUS: A Friedman test revealed a significant usability dif￾ference (χ 2 (1) = 6.00, p < .014), with experts rating the GAMIFIED system higher. The GAMIFIED condition ac… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Virtual reality (VR) is widely used for procedural medical training, yet most simulators emphasize realism while providing limited formative feedback. We examine how gamification affects performance, workload, and experiential quality in VR training for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion. We developed a gamified simulator with semantically aligned visual and auditory feedback (e.g., progress indicators, alignment guidance, rewards) while preserving procedural fidelity. Two studies were conducted with novices (N=24) and clinicians (N=12). Results showed that gamification reduced task time, improved usability, and lowered workload across expertise levels. Qualitative findings indicate improved goal clarity and confidence for novices and better pacing for experts. Overall, gamification can function as an effective formative feedback in VR medical training.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a gamified VR simulator for ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter insertion that incorporates semantically aligned visual and auditory feedback (progress indicators, alignment guidance, rewards) while aiming to preserve procedural fidelity. It reports two user studies—one with 24 novices and one with 12 clinicians—claiming that gamification reduces task time, improves usability, lowers workload across expertise levels, and yields qualitative benefits such as improved goal clarity for novices and better pacing for experts.

Significance. If the quantitative and qualitative results hold under more rigorous reporting, the work offers a practical demonstration that gamification can supply formative feedback in VR procedural training without obvious disruption to the core task. The dual-cohort design (novices and practicing clinicians) is a strength, as is the focus on workload and experiential metrics alongside performance. The contribution would be more substantial if future extensions address transfer, but the current scope still provides useful design guidance for VR medical simulators.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results section: the central claims of reduced task time, improved usability, and lowered workload are stated without any statistical details (p-values, effect sizes, confidence intervals, baseline comparisons, or error bars). This leaves the magnitude and reliability of the reported benefits unassessable and directly weakens support for the claim that gamification functions as effective formative feedback.
  2. [Methods / Discussion] Methods / Discussion: the assertion that semantically aligned gamification 'preserves procedural fidelity' is presented as a design feature but receives no empirical validation—no comparison to non-gamified VR, no transfer testing on physical phantoms or real procedures, and no measures of distraction or altered skill acquisition. This assumption is load-bearing for the paper’s claim of effective training.
  3. [User studies] User studies description: sample sizes (N=24 novices, N=12 clinicians) are modest, yet the text supplies no power analysis, randomization procedure, exclusion criteria, or handling of order effects. These omissions limit the strength of conclusions drawn across expertise levels.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by including at least one key quantitative metric or statistical outcome to summarize the main findings.
  2. [Methods] Clarify in the Methods how the specific gamified elements (e.g., alignment guidance) map to the ultrasound procedure steps to make the 'semantic alignment' claim more concrete.
  3. [Methods] Consider adding a table or figure that explicitly lists the gamified feedback components and their intended instructional purpose.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments highlight important areas for strengthening the reporting and transparency of our work. We address each major comment below and indicate the changes planned for the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results section: the central claims of reduced task time, improved usability, and lowered workload are stated without any statistical details (p-values, effect sizes, confidence intervals, baseline comparisons, or error bars). This leaves the magnitude and reliability of the reported benefits unassessable and directly weakens support for the claim that gamification functions as effective formative feedback.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of statistical details in the abstract and results weakens the presentation of our findings. The submitted manuscript reported only directional outcomes without supporting statistics. In the revision we will update the abstract to include key p-values, effect sizes, and confidence intervals, and we will expand the results section with tables reporting means, standard deviations, baseline comparisons between gamified and non-gamified conditions, and error bars on all performance and workload metrics. These additions will allow readers to assess both magnitude and reliability directly. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods / Discussion] Methods / Discussion: the assertion that semantically aligned gamification 'preserves procedural fidelity' is presented as a design feature but receives no empirical validation—no comparison to non-gamified VR, no transfer testing on physical phantoms or real procedures, and no measures of distraction or altered skill acquisition. This assumption is load-bearing for the paper’s claim of effective training.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript presents semantic alignment as a design choice intended to preserve fidelity but does not provide direct empirical validation within the reported studies. No non-gamified VR control arm or transfer-to-physical-task measures were collected, as the studies prioritized immediate within-VR performance, workload, and experiential outcomes. We have revised the discussion to explicitly label this as a limitation, to clarify that fidelity preservation remains a hypothesis supported by design rationale rather than tested evidence, and to recommend future transfer studies. The core claims about gamification effects on the measured variables remain unchanged. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [User studies] User studies description: sample sizes (N=24 novices, N=12 clinicians) are modest, yet the text supplies no power analysis, randomization procedure, exclusion criteria, or handling of order effects. These omissions limit the strength of conclusions drawn across expertise levels.

    Authors: We agree that the methods section lacked sufficient detail on study design and analysis decisions. Both studies employed a within-subjects design with counterbalancing of condition order to address order effects; novices were screened for zero prior experience with ultrasound-guided catheter insertion; and post-hoc power analyses were conducted but omitted from the text. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated methods subsection that reports the power analysis, randomization and counterbalancing procedures, explicit exclusion criteria, and how order effects were mitigated. This will improve transparency without altering the reported sample sizes or results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical user-study design

full rationale

The paper reports results from two within-VR user studies (N=24 novices, N=12 clinicians) that directly compare gamified versus non-gamified conditions on measured outcomes (task time, usability, workload, qualitative experience). No equations, fitted parameters, model-based predictions, or derivation chains appear in the provided text or abstract. Central claims rest on observed performance differences rather than any self-definition, imported uniqueness theorem, or renaming of prior results. The assumption of procedural fidelity is stated explicitly but is not derived from or reduced to the study's own inputs; it remains an untested external claim outside any circular loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is an empirical HCI evaluation that relies on standard assumptions about participant classification, VR fidelity, and the validity of self-report and performance measures rather than new theoretical constructs.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Participants can be reliably divided into novices and clinicians based on self-reported experience levels.
    Studies explicitly use N=24 novices and N=12 clinicians as distinct groups.
  • domain assumption Gamified feedback elements can be added while preserving procedural fidelity of the catheter insertion task.
    Design description states the simulator preserves fidelity while adding progress indicators, alignment guidance, and rewards.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5438 in / 1277 out tokens · 36016 ms · 2026-05-09T19:18:07.977641+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Use of short peripheral intravenous catheters: characteristics, management, and outcomes worldwide,

    E. Alexandrou, G. Ray-Barruel, P. J. Carr, S. A. Frost, S. Inwood, N. Higgins, F. Lin, L. Alberto, L. Mermel, C. M. Rickard,et al., “Use of short peripheral intravenous catheters: characteristics, management, and outcomes worldwide,”Journal of Hospital Medicine, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. E1–E7, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Incidence of peripheral intravenous catheter failure and complications in paediatric patients: systematic review and meta analysis,

    F. Indarwati, S. Mathew, J. Munday, and S. Keogh, “Incidence of peripheral intravenous catheter failure and complications in paediatric patients: systematic review and meta analysis,”International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 102, p. 103488, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Two different techniques of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter placement versus the traditional approach in the pre-hospital emergency setting: a randomized study,

    R. Skulec, J. Callerova, P. V ojtisek, and V . Cerny, “Two different techniques of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter placement versus the traditional approach in the pre-hospital emergency setting: a randomized study,”Internal and Emergency Medicine, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 303–310, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Factors affecting difficult peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults: a prospective observational study,

    M. Piredda, V . Biagioli, B. Barrella, I. Carpisassi, R. Ghinelli, D. Gi- annarelli, and M. G. De Marinis, “Factors affecting difficult peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults: a prospective observational study,” Journal of Clinical Nursing, vol. 26, no. 7–8, pp. 1074–1084, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous canu- lation by emergency nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis,

    L. ´Alvarez-Morales, J. L. G ´omez-Urquiza, N. Suleiman-Martos, M. J. Membrive-Jim ´enez, A. Gonz ´alez-D´ıaz, R. Garc ´ıa P ´erez, and A. Li ˜n´an-Gonzalez, “Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous canu- lation by emergency nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” International Emergency Nursing, vol. 73, p. 101422, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Ultrasound guidance for central venous access: current evidence and clinical recommenda- tions,

    A. Leibowitz, A. Oren-Grinberg, and R. Matyal, “Ultrasound guidance for central venous access: current evidence and clinical recommenda- tions,”Journal of Intensive Care Medicine, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 303–321, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A standardized training program in ultrasound-guided intravenous line placement: improving nurses’ confidence and success,

    A. McKinney, K. Steanson, and K. Lebar, “A standardized training program in ultrasound-guided intravenous line placement: improving nurses’ confidence and success,”Advances in Neonatal Care, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 17–22, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Hemingway,Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Insertion: An Alternative Approach to Reducing the Use of Central Venous Catheters, Ph.D

    N. Hemingway,Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Insertion: An Alternative Approach to Reducing the Use of Central Venous Catheters, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Saint Joseph, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Teaching ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter placement through immersive virtual reality: An explorative pilot study,

    N. L. Andersen, R. O. Jensen, S. Posth, C. B. Laursen, R. Jørgensen, and O. Graumann, “Teaching ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter placement through immersive virtual reality: An explorative pilot study,” Medicine, vol. 100, no. 27, p. e26394, 2021

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: a systematic review and meta- analysis,

    K. Liu, W. Zhang, W. Li, T. Wang, and Y . Zheng, “Effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: a systematic review and meta- analysis,”BMC Medical Education, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 710, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Impact of an immersive virtual reality simulator education program on nursing students’ intravenous injection admin- istration: A mixed methods study,

    Y .-Y . Chang, L.-F. Chao, W. Chang, C.-M. Lin, Y .-H. Lee, A. Latimer, and M. L. Chung, “Impact of an immersive virtual reality simulator education program on nursing students’ intravenous injection admin- istration: A mixed methods study,”Nurse Education Today, vol. 132, p. 106002, 2024

    work page 2024

  12. [13]

    Gamification in theory and action: A survey,

    K. Seaborn and D. I. Fels, “Gamification in theory and action: A survey,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 74, pp. 14–31, 2015

    work page 2015

  13. [14]

    VR [We Are] training- workshop on collaborative virtual training for challenging contexts,

    G. Regal, H. Schrom-Feiertag, Q. Nguyen, M. Aust, M. Murtinger, D. Smit, M. Tscheligi, and M. Billinghurst, “VR [We Are] training- workshop on collaborative virtual training for challenging contexts,” in CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pp. 1–6, 2022

    work page 2022

  14. [15]

    A review on virtual reality skill training applications,

    B. Xie, H. Liu, R. Alghofaili, Y . Zhang, Y . Jiang, F. D. Lobo, C. Li, W. Li, H. Huang, M. Akdere,et al., “A review on virtual reality skill training applications,”Frontiers in Virtual Reality, vol. 2, p. 645153, 2021

    work page 2021

  15. [16]

    Virtual reality training for radiation safety in cardiac catheterization laboratories–an integrated study,

    A. Fujiwara, S. Fujimoto, R. Ishikawa, and A. Tanaka, “Virtual reality training for radiation safety in cardiac catheterization laboratories–an integrated study,”Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol. 200, no. 15, pp. 1462–1469, 2024

    work page 2024

  16. [17]

    Application and effect analysis of virtual reality technology in vocational education practical training,

    Y . Long, X. Zhang, and X. Zeng, “Application and effect analysis of virtual reality technology in vocational education practical training,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 9755–9786, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [18]

    Future directions for the development of virtual reality within an automotive manufacturer,

    G. Lawson, D. Salanitri, and B. Waterfield, “Future directions for the development of virtual reality within an automotive manufacturer,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 53, pp. 323–330, 2016

    work page 2016

  18. [19]

    Stress out: translating real-world stressors into audio-visual stress cues in VR for police training,

    Q. Nguyen, E. Jaspaert, M. Murtinger, H. Schrom-Feiertag, S. Egger- Lampl, and M. Tscheligi, “Stress out: translating real-world stressors into audio-visual stress cues in VR for police training,” inIFIP Confer- ence on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 551–561, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [20]

    CBRNe training in virtual environments: SWOT analysis & practical guidelines,

    M. Murtinger, E. Jaspaert, H. Schrom-Feiertag, and S. Egger-Lampl, “CBRNe training in virtual environments: SWOT analysis & practical guidelines,”International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 295–303, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [21]

    Virtual reality-based pilot training for underground coal miners,

    A. Grabowski and J. Jankowski, “Virtual reality-based pilot training for underground coal miners,”Safety Science, vol. 72, pp. 310–314, 2015

    work page 2015

  21. [22]

    Challenges in virtual reality training for CRBN events,

    G. Regal, H. Schrom-Feiertag, M. Migliorini, M. Guarneri, D. Di Gio- vanni, A. D’Angelo, and M. Murtinger, “Challenges in virtual reality training for CRBN events,” inInternational Conference on Extended Reality, pp. 79–88, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [23]

    Threat assess- ment in police VR training: Multi-sensory cues for situation awareness,

    J. C. Uhl, M. Murtinger, O. Zechner, and M. Tscheligi, “Threat assess- ment in police VR training: Multi-sensory cues for situation awareness,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Metrology for Extended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering (MetroXRAINE), pp. 432–437, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [24]

    Enhancing learning outcomes through multisensory integration: A fMRI study of audio- visual training in virtual reality,

    K. Alwashmi, G. Meyer, F. Rowe, and R. Ward, “Enhancing learning outcomes through multisensory integration: A fMRI study of audio- visual training in virtual reality,”NeuroImage, vol. 285, p. 120483, 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [25]

    An adaptive virtual reality game for programming education using fuzzy cognitive maps and pedagogical models,

    A. Marougkas, C. Troussas, A. Krouska, and C. Sgouropoulou, “An adaptive virtual reality game for programming education using fuzzy cognitive maps and pedagogical models,”Smart Learning Environments, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 62, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [26]

    Exploring adaptive virtual reality systems used in interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder: systematic review,

    L. Maddalon, M. E. Minissi, T. Parsons, A. Hervas, and M. Alcaniz, “Exploring adaptive virtual reality systems used in interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder: systematic review,”Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 26, p. e57093, 2024

    work page 2024

  26. [27]

    Marcus or Mira—investigating the perception of virtual agent gender in virtual reality role play-training,

    G. Regal, J. C. Uhl, A. Gerhardus, S. Suette, E. Frankus, J. Schmid, S. Kriglstein, and M. Tscheligi, “Marcus or Mira—investigating the perception of virtual agent gender in virtual reality role play-training,” inProceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 1–11, 2022

    work page 2022

  27. [28]

    Towards intelligent VR training: A physiological adaptation framework for cognitive load and stress detection,

    M. Nasri, “Towards intelligent VR training: A physiological adaptation framework for cognitive load and stress detection,” inProceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Person- alization, pp. 419–423, 2025

    work page 2025

  28. [29]

    Knowledge gain and the impact of stress in a fully immersive virtual reality–based medical emergencies training with automated feedback: Randomized controlled trial,

    M. Lindner, T. Leutritz, J. Backhaus, S. K ¨onig, and T. M ¨uhling, “Knowledge gain and the impact of stress in a fully immersive virtual reality–based medical emergencies training with automated feedback: Randomized controlled trial,”Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 27, p. e67412, 2025

    work page 2025

  29. [30]

    Development and evaluation of a trauma decision-making simulator in Oculus virtual reality,

    C. M. Harrington, D. O. Kavanagh, J. F. Quinlan, D. Ryan, P. Dicker, D. O’Keeffe, O. Traynor, and S. Tierney, “Development and evaluation of a trauma decision-making simulator in Oculus virtual reality,”The American Journal of Surgery, vol. 215, no. 1, pp. 42–47, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [31]

    The applicability of virtual reality in cardiopulmonary resuscitation training–opinion of medical professionals and students,

    F. Jaskiewicz, K. Frydrysiak, K. Starosta-Głowinska, and D. Timler, “The applicability of virtual reality in cardiopulmonary resuscitation training–opinion of medical professionals and students,”Emergency Medical Service. Ratownictwo Medyczne, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 32–36, 2019

    work page 2019

  31. [32]

    MAGES 3.0: Tying the knot of medical VR,

    G. Papagiannakis, P. Zikas, N. Lydatakis, S. Kateros, M. Kentros, E. Geronikolakis, M. Kamarianakis, I. Kartsonaki, and G. Evangelou, “MAGES 3.0: Tying the knot of medical VR,” inACM SIGGRAPH 2020 Immersive Pavilion, pp. 1–2, 2020

    work page 2020

  32. [33]

    A collaborative virtual reality environment for liver surgery planning,

    V . Chheang, P. Saalfeld, F. Joeres, C. Boedecker, T. Huber, F. Huettl, H. Lang, B. Preim, and C. Hansen, “A collaborative virtual reality environment for liver surgery planning,”Computers & Graphics, vol. 99, pp. 234–246, 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [34]

    Healthcare training application: 3D first aid virtual reality,

    N. N. Al-Hiyari and S. S. Jusoh, “Healthcare training application: 3D first aid virtual reality,” inInternational Conference on Data Science, E-learning and Information Systems 2021, pp. 107–116, 2021

    work page 2021

  34. [35]

    VReanimate II: training first aid and reanimation in virtual reality,

    K. Bucher, T. Blome, S. Rudolph, and S. von Mammen, “VReanimate II: training first aid and reanimation in virtual reality,”Journal of Computers in Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 53–78, 2019

    work page 2019

  35. [36]

    VR-based equipment training for health professionals,

    M. Rettinger, N. M ¨uller, C. Holzmann-Littig, M. Wijnen-Meijer, G. Rigoll, and C. Schmaderer, “VR-based equipment training for health professionals,” inExtended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–6, 2021

    work page 2021

  36. [37]

    PathoGenius VR: VR medical training,

    E. Makled, A. Yassien, P. Elagroudy, M. Magdy, S. Abdennadher, and N. Hamdi, “PathoGenius VR: VR medical training,” inProceedings of the 8th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, pp. 1–2, 2019

    work page 2019

  37. [38]

    Virtual reality medical training system,

    S. Gonz ´alez Izard and J. A. Juanes M ´endez, “Virtual reality medical training system,” inProceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, pp. 479– 485, 2016

    work page 2016

  38. [39]

    Does gamification work?–a literature review of empirical studies on gamification,

    J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, and H. Sarsa, “Does gamification work?–a literature review of empirical studies on gamification,” in2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 3025–3034, 2014

    work page 2014

  39. [40]

    From game design elements to gamefulness: defining ‘gamification’,

    S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke, “From game design elements to gamefulness: defining ‘gamification’,” inProceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, pp. 9–15, 2011

    work page 2011

  40. [41]

    Defining gamification: a service market- ing perspective,

    K. Huotari and J. Hamari, “Defining gamification: a service market- ing perspective,” inProceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, pp. 17–22, 2012

    work page 2012

  41. [42]

    Eudaimonic design, or: Six invitations to rethink gamifi- cation,

    S. Deterding, “Eudaimonic design, or: Six invitations to rethink gamifi- cation,” 2014

    work page 2014

  42. [43]

    The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach,

    R. M. Ryan, C. S. Rigby, and A. Przybylski, “The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach,”Motivation and Emotion, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 344–360, 2006

    work page 2006

  43. [44]

    Do points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation? An empirical analysis of common gamification elements,

    E. D. Mekler, F. Br ¨uhlmann, K. Opwis, and A. N. Tuch, “Do points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation? An empirical analysis of common gamification elements,” inProceedings of the First Inter- national Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, pp. 66–73, 2013

    work page 2013

  44. [45]

    Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: A goal setting experiment,

    R. N. Landers, K. N. Bauer, and R. C. Callan, “Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: A goal setting experiment,”Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 71, pp. 508–515, 2017

    work page 2017

  45. [46]

    Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification,

    J. Hamari, “Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification,”Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 71, pp. 469–478, 2017

    work page 2017

  46. [47]

    The need to achieve: Players’ perceptions and uses of extrinsic meta-game reward systems for video game consoles,

    C. Cruz, M. D. Hanus, and J. Fox, “The need to achieve: Players’ perceptions and uses of extrinsic meta-game reward systems for video game consoles,”Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 71, pp. 516–524, 2017

    work page 2017

  47. [48]

    X. Fang,HCI in Games: Experience Design and Game Mechanics: Third International Conference, HCI-Games 2021, Held as Part of the 23rd HCI International Conference, HCII 2021, Virtual Event, July 24–29, 2021, Proceedings, Part I, vol. 12789, Springer Nature, 2021

    work page 2021

  48. [49]

    Gamification for health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature,

    D. Johnson, S. Deterding, K.-A. Kuhn, A. Staneva, S. Stoyanov, and L. Hides, “Gamification for health and wellbeing: A systematic review of the literature,”Internet Interventions, vol. 6, pp. 89–106, 2016

    work page 2016

  49. [50]

    Gamification at work: Designing engaging business software,

    G. Zichermann, “Gamification at work: Designing engaging business software,”The Interaction Design Foundation, 2020

    work page 2020

  50. [51]

    Seven points to reappropriate gamification,

    M. Thibault and J. Hamari, “Seven points to reappropriate gamification,” inTransforming Society and Organizations Through Gamification: From the Sustainable Development Goals to Inclusive Workplaces, pp. 11–28, Springer, 2021

    work page 2021

  51. [52]

    Juicy game design: Understanding the impact of visual embellishments on player experience,

    K. Hicks, K. Gerling, P. Dickinson, and V . Vanden Abeele, “Juicy game design: Understanding the impact of visual embellishments on player experience,” inProceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer- Human Interaction in Play, pp. 185–197, 2019

    work page 2019

  52. [53]

    How to prototype a game in under 7 days,

    K. Gabler, K. Gray, M. Kucic, and S. Shodhan, “How to prototype a game in under 7 days,”Gamasutra, Oct., vol. 26, 2005

    work page 2005

  53. [54]

    Gamification and motivation in education: A systematic literature review,

    A. Karimov, M. Saarela, and S. Ouazizi, “Gamification and motivation in education: A systematic literature review,” ineLearn: World Conference on EdTech, pp. 616–624, 2024

    work page 2024

  54. [56]

    Gamification effects on learning outcomes: A meta-analysis,

    I. G. N. D. Putra and I. W. Redhana, “Gamification effects on learning outcomes: A meta-analysis,” inAIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 3206, no. 1, p. 080015, 2025

    work page 2025

  55. [57]

    A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of gamification on student learning achievement,

    A. F. Diaz and H. Estoque-Lo ˜nez, “A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of gamification on student learning achievement,”International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1236–1253, 2024

    work page 2024

  56. [58]

    Impact of gamification on students’ learning outcomes and academic performance: A longitudinal study comparing online, traditional, and gamified learning,

    G. Lampropoulos and A. Sidiropoulos, “Impact of gamification on students’ learning outcomes and academic performance: A longitudinal study comparing online, traditional, and gamified learning,”Education Sciences, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 367, 2024

    work page 2024

  57. [59]

    A meta-analysis of gamification’s impact on student motivation in K-12 education,

    M. Furkan Kurnaz and N. Koc ¸t ¨urk, “A meta-analysis of gamification’s impact on student motivation in K-12 education,”Psychology in the Schools, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 4997–5009, 2025

    work page 2025

  58. [60]

    Landing windows method as soft visual constraints for mid-air interactions,

    D. Doesburg, M. Gemici, and A. U. Batmaz, “Landing windows method as soft visual constraints for mid-air interactions,” inProceedings of the 2025 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, pp. 1–12, 2025

    work page 2025

  59. [61]

    Gamification and neurological motor reha- bilitation in children and adolescents: a systematic review,

    M. Pimentel-Ponce, R. P. Romero-Galisteo, R. Palomo-Carri ´on, E. Pinero-Pinto, J. A. Merch ´an-Baeza, M. Ruiz-Mu ˜noz, J. Oliver-Pece, and M. Gonz ´alez-S´anchez, “Gamification and neurological motor reha- bilitation in children and adolescents: a systematic review,”Neurolog ´ıa (English Edition), vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 63–83, 2024

    work page 2024

  60. [62]

    Enhancing physical education through gamifica- tion and ergonomics: A literature review,

    C. Merino-Campos, “Enhancing physical education through gamifica- tion and ergonomics: A literature review,”Theoretical and Applied Ergonomics, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 3, 2025

    work page 2025

  61. [65]

    Gamification enhances student intrinsic motivation, perceptions of autonomy and relatedness, but min- imal impact on competency: a meta-analysis and systematic review,

    L. Liuyufeng, K. F. Hew, and J. Du, “Gamification enhances student intrinsic motivation, perceptions of autonomy and relatedness, but min- imal impact on competency: a meta-analysis and systematic review,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 765–796, 2024

    work page 2024

  62. [66]

    The system usability scale: past, present, and future,

    J. R. Lewis, “The system usability scale: past, present, and future,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 577–590, 2018

    work page 2018

  63. [67]

    Development and validation of the player experience inventory: A scale to measure player experiences at the level of functional and psychosocial consequences,

    V . Vanden Abeele, K. Spiel, L. Nacke, D. Johnson, and K. Gerling, “Development and validation of the player experience inventory: A scale to measure player experiences at the level of functional and psychosocial consequences,”International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 135, p. 102370, 2020

    work page 2020

  64. [68]

    Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,

    S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,” inAdvances in Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139–183, 1988

    work page 1988

  65. [69]

    G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences,

    F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang, and A. Buchner, “G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences,”Behavior Research Methods, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 175–191, 2007

    work page 2007

  66. [70]

    Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double- blinded study,

    N. E. Seymour, A. G. Gallagher, S. A. Roman, M. K. O’Brien, V . K. Bansal, D. K. Andersen, and R. M. Satava, “Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double- blinded study,”Annals of Surgery, vol. 236, no. 4, pp. 458–464, 2002

    work page 2002

  67. [71]

    A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003– 2009,

    W. C. McGaghie, S. B. Issenberg, E. R. Petrusa, and R. J. Scalese, “A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003– 2009,”Medical Education, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 50–63, 2010

    work page 2003

  68. [72]

    Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing,

    F. Lateef, “Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing,”Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 348–352, 2010

    work page 2010

  69. [73]

    Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review & meta-analysis,

    M. Alaker, G. R. Wynn, and T. Arulampalam, “Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review & meta-analysis,”Interna- tional Journal of Surgery, vol. 29, pp. 85–94, 2016

    work page 2016

  70. [74]

    Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention,

    M. Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention,”HarperPerennial, New York, vol. 39, pp. 1–16, 1997

    work page 1997

  71. [75]

    Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning,

    J. Krath, L. Sch ¨urmann, and H. F. O. von Korflesch, “Revealing the theoretical basis of gamification: A systematic review and analysis of theory in research on gamification, serious games and game-based learning,”Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 125, p. 106963, 2021

    work page 2021

  72. [76]

    The maturing of gamification research,

    L. E. Nacke and S. Deterding, “The maturing of gamification research,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 71, pp. 450–454, 2017

    work page 2017

  73. [77]

    How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction,

    M. Sailer, J. U. Hense, S. K. Mayr, and H. Mandl, “How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction,”Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 69, pp. 371–380, 2017

    work page 2017

  74. [78]

    Risk factors associated with difficult venous access in adult ED patients,

    J. M. Fields, N. E. Piela, A. K. Au, and B. S. Ku, “Risk factors associated with difficult venous access in adult ED patients,”The American Journal of Emergency Medicine, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 1179–1182, 2014

    work page 2014

  75. [79]

    A risk prediction model for adult patients with difficult intravenous access,

    Y . Ji, C. Liu, X. Cao, and L. Zhao, “A risk prediction model for adult patients with difficult intravenous access,”The Journal of Vascular Access, p. 11297298251314909, 2025

    work page 2025

  76. [80]

    Reflective practice in healthcare education: an umbrella review,

    K. C. Fragkos, “Reflective practice in healthcare education: an umbrella review,”Education Sciences, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 27, 2016

    work page 2016

  77. [81]

    A systematic review of reflective practice questionnaires and scales for healthcare professionals: a narra- tive synthesis,

    S. M. Ooi, P. Fisher, and S. Coker, “A systematic review of reflective practice questionnaires and scales for healthcare professionals: a narra- tive synthesis,”Reflective Practice, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2021

    work page 2021