Tag Archives: experiences

HOW DO AR GLASSES AND HEADSETS COMPARE TO SMARTPHONES IN TERMS OF IMMERSIVE AR EXPERIENCES

Leave a reply

When it comes to delivering truly immersive augmented reality (AR) experiences, AR glasses and headsets have distinct advantages over smartphones. While smartphones were the first major platform to bring AR to the consumer market and enable basic overlay of digital content on the real world, they have inherent limitations that prevent them from achieving the same levels of immersion as head-mounted displays (HMDs).

One of the most significant differences is the field of view (FOV) which refers to the extent of the real world that can be seen through the device. Smartphone FOVs are constrained by their small screen sizes, typically ranging from 5-6 inches diagonal. Even holding a phone at arms length only provides a FOV of 30-40 degrees. In contrast, HMDs are designed to fill more of the user’s natural FOV in order to fuse digital and physical scenes seamlessly. Current AR glasses like the Vuzix Blade have FOVs over 40 degrees, while advanced research prototypes are approaching human FOV levels of 180-220 degrees horizontal and 120-135 degrees vertical. A wider FOV is critical for convincing depth cues and peripheral awareness of blended environments.

Related to FOV is the optical resolution and pixel density needed to overlay graphics convincingly on the real world. Again smartphones are limited by their screens which top out around 450-500 pixels per inch (PPI), compared to next generation AR displays targeting 1000+ PPI. Higher resolutions are required to avoid the “screen-door effect” where individual pixels are visible, breaking the illusion. They also enable finer details and text in AR overlays. While smartphones can handle basic overlays, more complex 3D graphics and holograms will appear blurry or pixelated on phone displays.

Eye tracking is another differentiating feature that enhances immersion. Integrated eye tracking allows HMDs to track a user’s focus and line of sight, enabling new interactions like gaze-based controls and foveated rendering. Foveated rendering optimizes graphical fidelity based on where the user is looking for performance gains. For phones, crude eye tracking is possible through front cameras but precision is limited.

Input is also more natural and intuitive with HMDs. Most support 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) head tracking which precisely tracks and renders virtual content anchored in 3D space. Users can intuitively look around objects from different angles. Phones are limited to 3DoF and gyros – they can’t perceive true 6DoF head movements. Touchscreens also don’t support gestures like pointing that are natural in AR. Motion controllers further expand interactivity for some HMDs.

Perhaps the biggest difference lies in the form factor itself. Being untethered to a phone frees hands for other tasks while seeing AR. They also provide a more private experience that can be used discreetly in public. In contrast, holding phones up is awkward, tiring on arms, and draws more attention from others. This limits long-term use cases for AR on phones to passive, short-form experiences. The hands-free and discreet nature of HMDs unlocks many productivity, educational, and social/collaborative AR applications.

On the technical side, HMDs provide far better thermal management due to their design. Phones can overheat quickly rendering graphics-intensive AR for extended periods due to thermal constraints of thin, tightly packed devices. For a truly immersive experience, consistent performance is required. Phones are great for short demos but aren’t suitable for applications requiring persistent compute resources from the device.

Connectivity is also more reliable with HMDs which will support high throughput WiFi 6 and 5G connections. Phones still depend on mobile data plans that vary by region and provider. Offline and low-latency AR is challenging on phones but better supported by HMD hardware. Battery life is much longer too, enabling all-day AR use cases versus a few hours maximum on phones.

While smartphones created mainstream awareness of AR, their inherent form factor limitations prevent truly immersive experiences on par with HMDs. Only head-mounted displays can provide the large field of view, high resolution optics, integrated input like gaze and gesture, 6DoF tracking, thermal performance, offline capability and all-day battery required for advanced AR applications. As optical and computational technologies progress, AR glasses and headsets will continue leaving smartphones behind in the pursuit of seamlessly blending digital imagery with the real world.

WHAT ARE SOME POTENTIAL CHALLENGES IN INTEGRATING VIRTUAL REALITY LEARNING EXPERIENCES INTO EXISTING NURSING CURRICULA

Leave a reply

A significant challenge is the upfront financial investment required to establish VR learning programs. Nursing programs would need to purchase VR headsets, develop or purchase VR learning modules, and potentially make modifications to classroom spaces to accommodate VR usage. Initial estimates suggest that fully equipping even a small to mid-sized nursing program could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. This level of investment may be difficult for many programs to secure, especially given existing budget constraints that many nursing schools face. Additional ongoing costs are also likely, such as replacing or updating equipment, purchasing new modules, technical support, etc.

Another major challenge is the time required for faculty development and training. Integrating a new technology like VR into the curriculum is a major undertaking that changes the way instruction is designed and delivered. It can take considerable time for faculty to learn how to use the VR equipment effectively, develop pedagogically sound lesson plans around VR modules, and facilitate VR-based learning activities. This level of training may present scheduling and workload issues for existing nursing faculty who already have full teaching responsibilities. It may necessitate reducing other curricular content or hiring additional instructors dedicated to VR. Extensive faculty buy-in to the value of VR learning is also important for successful adoption but can take time to achieve.

Potential challenges exist in effectively incorporating VR into already full nursing course schedules and degree plans too. Finding ways to realistically fit VR modules and necessary pre/post lesson activities into 50-60 minute class periods without disrupting other essential content is difficult. Similarly, determining how many credits or clinical hours VR activities should count for and how that impacts program accreditation requirements needs careful consideration. Students may also face challenges in accessing and using VR equipment outside of classroom time if modules are intended to replace or augment other learning modalities like readings, lectures, etc. Technical glitches or delays could disrupt classroom instruction if Wi-Fi bandwidth or equipment performance are issues.

Student preparedness for engaging with immersive VR learning experiences may be an additional challenge for many programs initially. While younger digital natives are generally very comfortable with technologies like VR, older and returning students adjusting to advanced educational technologies presents its own learning curve. Helping students who are less familiar with VR to quickly feel at ease in an immersive virtual world and draw the right lessons from their experience may require supplemental student supports. Addressing individual VR access needs is critical too, such as for students with visual or cognitive impairments. Initial student resistance to a perceived “gaming” technology in formal nursing education is possible also and should be overcome through emphasizing VR’s direct application to real clinical skills.

Establishing measures for effective VR program assessment and outcomes evaluation are further challenges programs may face. Defining appropriate metrics and developing rigorous evaluation methodologies to demonstrate how VR impacts competency achievement, knowledge retention, perceived preparation for practice, and other important learning outcomes can require significant research efforts. Regional and national nursing accrediting bodies also expect data-driven evidence that innovative teaching approaches are enhancing education quality, adding value to existing curricula, and supporting quality program outcomes.

While VR has great promise to elevate nursing education through dynamic, immersive simulations, thoughtful consideration and planning is required to address challenges concerning financial investment, faculty development, curricular integration logistics, student access and preparedness, and program evaluation. With effort to plan for all stakeholder needs and target success metrics upfront, the potential for VR to revolutionize nursing students’ clinical preparation can be realized. But meaningful adoption of this game-changing technology necessitates overcoming initial obstacles through long-term institutional commitment and investment in change management.