Abstract:

Introduction:
Neuroanatomy stands as a formidable challenge for both medical students and the general public, giving rise to widespread phenomenon coined as “Neuroanatomyphobia”. This fear and apprehension toward the subject have underscored a need for innovative teaching methodologies capable of breaking down the complexities associated with neuroanatomy education.

Aims/objectives:
- Comparing information recall effectiveness between traditional teaching methods and Virtual Reality (VR) applications.
- Exploring the potential of VR to alleviate ‘Neuroanatomyphobia’ and enhance student attitudes towards brain dissection and handling.
- Assessing the economic implications of cadaver-based teaching Vs. VR technology adoption.

Method:
A comprehensive literature review was conducted via academic databases such as Pubmed and Cochrane. Criteria for inclusion comprised English language publications incorporating keywords such as “Neuroanatomyphobia”, “Neuroanatomy”, “VR”, “Augmented Reality (AR)”, “Cost”, “Information retention”, “Economic viability”, “Cadaveric teaching”, using BOOLEAN operators to refine and focus on relevant studies.

Results:
Repeated assessments reveal that students utilizing VR or AR for learning neuroanatomy significantly outperform counterparts employing traditional methods, such as anatomy-atlases or cadaver dissection. Moreover, VR groups reported a heightened perception of their skill, an enhanced level of comfort, and a diminished apprehension toward neuroanatomical complexity. Economically, VR adoption has been depicted as a viable option for universities, evidenced by successful VR implementations in programs like the University of East Anglia’s MBBS degree. Despite its higher cost compared to atlas-based methods and limited availability across academic programs, it is economically more feasible than maintaining a cadaveric teaching lab.

Discussion:
Transitioning to VR-enhanced teaching approaches presents challenges, notably due to initial financial investments required and the necessary acclimatization to new technological tools among faculty members. The limited number of software programs available and their lower quality and resolution for details compared to traditional dissection highlights a significant gap in the market. Although cadaveric teaching remains unparalleled in delivering real-life haptic anatomical experiences and details associated with anatomical variations, the potential of VR in anatomical education cannot be overlooked.

Conclusion:
VR in neuroanatomy education offers a promising alternative to traditional cadaveric teaching, potentially heralding a paradigm shift in medical education practices. Despite its advantages, the VR’s broader adoption in hindered by economic considerations and the current scarcity of high-quality VR educational programs.

Limitations:
The existing body of research is limited by small sample sizes and the early stage of VR integration in groups’ studies, leading to a reduction in confidence and representation. The gap, however, opens new avenues for research into overcoming neuroanatomyphobia through VR teaching aids.

Keywords:

Neuroanatomyphobia, Neuroanatomy, VR, AR, Cost-effectiveness, Information retention, Economic viability, Cadaveric teaching.