The adoption of extended reality solutions is growing rapidly in the healthcare world. Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) interfaces can bring advantages in various medical-health sectors; it is thus not surprising that the medical MR market is among the fastest-growing ones. The present study reports on a comparison between two of the most popular MR head-mounted displays, Magic Leap 1 and Microsoft HoloLens 2, for the visualization of 3D medical imaging data. We evaluate the functionalities and performance of both devices through a user-study in which surgeons and residents assessed the visualization of 3D computer-generated anatomical models. The digital content is obtained through a dedicated medical imaging suite (Verima imaging suite) developed by the Italian start-up company (Witapp s.r.l.). According to our performance analysis in terms of frame rate, there are no significant differences between the two devices. The surgical staff expressed a clear preference for Magic Leap 1, particularly for the better visualization quality and the ease of interaction with the 3D virtual content. Nonetheless, even though the results of the questionnaire were slightly more positive for Magic Leap 1, the spatial understanding of the 3D anatomical model in terms of depth relations and spatial arrangement was positively evaluated for both devices.

Magic Leap 1 versus Microsoft HoloLens 2 for the Visualization of 3D Content Obtained from Radiological Images

Zari, Giulia;Condino, Sara;Cutolo, Fabrizio;Ferrari, Vincenzo
2023-01-01

Abstract

The adoption of extended reality solutions is growing rapidly in the healthcare world. Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) interfaces can bring advantages in various medical-health sectors; it is thus not surprising that the medical MR market is among the fastest-growing ones. The present study reports on a comparison between two of the most popular MR head-mounted displays, Magic Leap 1 and Microsoft HoloLens 2, for the visualization of 3D medical imaging data. We evaluate the functionalities and performance of both devices through a user-study in which surgeons and residents assessed the visualization of 3D computer-generated anatomical models. The digital content is obtained through a dedicated medical imaging suite (Verima imaging suite) developed by the Italian start-up company (Witapp s.r.l.). According to our performance analysis in terms of frame rate, there are no significant differences between the two devices. The surgical staff expressed a clear preference for Magic Leap 1, particularly for the better visualization quality and the ease of interaction with the 3D virtual content. Nonetheless, even though the results of the questionnaire were slightly more positive for Magic Leap 1, the spatial understanding of the 3D anatomical model in terms of depth relations and spatial arrangement was positively evaluated for both devices.
2023
Zari, Giulia; Condino, Sara; Cutolo, Fabrizio; Ferrari, Vincenzo
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/1169865
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact