4.1 Article

Feedback and motor skill acquisition using a haptic dental simulator

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTAL EDUCATION
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 240-247

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eje.12214

Keywords

skill acquisition; dentistry; undergraduate dental education; virtual reality; feedback; motor learning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To investigate the effect of qualitatively different types of pedagogical feedback (FB) on the training, transfer and retention of basic manual dexterity dental skills using a virtual reality (VR) haptic dental simulator. Methods: Sixty-three participants (M = 22.7 years; SD = 3.4 years), with no previous dental training, were randomly allocated to one of three groups (n = 21 each). Group 1 received device-only feedback during the training phase, that is the visual display of the simulator (DFB); Group 2 received verbal feedback from a qualified dental instructor (IFB); and Group 3 received a combination of instructor and device feedback (IDFB). Participants completed four tasks during which feedback was given according to group allocation as well as two skills transfer tests. Skill retention was examined immediately after training, at 1 week and at 1 month post-test. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in overall performance (P < 0.001) and error (P = 0.006). Post hoc comparisons revealed the IDFB group produced substantially better performance and fewer errors in comparison with DFB and IFB training. This difference translated to improved performance in skill retention and generalisation of knowledge to novel tasks. Conclusion: These data indicate that the acquisition and retention of basic dental motor skills in novice trainees is best optimised through a combination of instructor and visual display (VR)-driven feedback. The results have implications for the utility and implementation of VR haptic technology in dental education.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available