Play and Learn: Gamified Feedback for Ultrasound-Guided Catheter Insertion Training in Virtual Reality
Extracted source text · arXiv 2605.00389
\documentclass[conference]{IEEEtran}
\IEEEoverridecommandlockouts
\IEEEpubid{\makebox[\columnwidth]{ 979-8-3315-8342-2/26/\$31.00 ~\copyright2026 IEEE \hfill} \hspace{\columnsep}\makebox[\columnwidth]{ }}
% The preceding line is only needed to identify funding in the first footnote. If that is unneeded, please comment it out.
%Template version as of 6/27/2024
\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\def\BibTeX{{\rm B\kern-.05em{\sc i\kern-.025em b}\kern-.08em
T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}}
\begin{document}
\title{Play and Learn: Gamified Feedback for Ultrasound-Guided Catheter Insertion Training in Virtual Reality\\
% {\footnotesize \textsuperscript{*}Note: Sub-titles are not captured for https://ieeexplore.ieee.org and
% should not be used}
% \thanks{Identify applicable funding agency here. If none, delete this.}
}
% \author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Mohammad Raihanul Bashar}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{Department of Computer Science \& Software Engineering} \\
% \textit{Concordia University}\\
% Montreal, Canada \\
% mohammadraihanul.bashar@mail.concordia.ca}
% \and
% \IEEEauthorblockN{Alejandro Olivares Hernandez}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{} \\
% \textit{Sononurse VS Inc.}\\
% Montreal, Canada \\
% alejandro.olivares@sononurse.com}
% \and
% \IEEEauthorblockN{Yahia Zine}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{} \\
% \textit{Sononurse VS Inc.)}\\
% Montreal, Canada \\
% yahia.zine@sononurse.com}
% \and
% \IEEEauthorblockN{Anil Ufuk Batmaz}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{\textit{Department of Computer Science \& Software Engineering} \\
% \textit{Concordia University}\\
% Montreal, Canada \\
% ufuk.batmaz@concordia.ca}
% }
% \author{
% Mohammad Raihanul Bashar,
% Alejandro Olivares Hernandez,
% Yahia Zine,
% and Anil Ufuk Batmaz\\
% Department of Computer Science \& Software Engineering\\
% Concordia University and Sononurse VS Inc.\\
% Montreal, Canada\\
% Email: \{mohammadraihanul.bashar, ufuk.batmaz\}@concordia.ca;
% \{alejandro.olivares, yahia.zine\}@sononurse.com
% }
\author{
\IEEEauthorblockN{
Mohammad Raihanul Bashar\IEEEauthorrefmark{1},
Alejandro Olivares Hernandez\IEEEauthorrefmark{2},
Yahia Zine\IEEEauthorrefmark{2},
Anil Ufuk Batmaz\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}
}
\IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{1}
Department of Computer Science \& Software Engineering\\
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada\\
Email: \{mohammadraihanul.bashar, ufuk.batmaz\}@concordia.ca}
\IEEEauthorblockA{\IEEEauthorrefmark{2}
Sononurse VS Inc., Montreal, Canada\\
Email: \{alejandro.olivares, yahia.zine\}@sononurse.com}
}
\maketitle
\IEEEpubidadjcol
\begin{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.
\end{abstract}
\begin{IEEEkeywords}
Virtual Reality, Gamification, Simulation, Medical Training, Ultrasound-Guided Catheter Insertion
\end{IEEEkeywords}
\section{Introduction}
Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion is a common procedure for establishing rapid intravenous access, with over two billion catheters used annually worldwide~\cite{alexandrou2018use}. Despite its prevalence, first-attempt failure rates can reach 39\%, and overall catheter failure affects approximately 30–50\% of patients due to complications such as infiltration, phlebitis, occlusion, dislodgement, and hematoma~\cite{indarwati2020incidence, skulec2020two}. Traditional landmark-based techniques rely heavily on visual inspection and tactile estimation of superficial veins~\cite{piredda2017factors}, which has driven the growing adoption of ultrasound guidance. While ultrasound improves cannulation success, especially in patients with difficult intravenous access, and reduces complications~\cite{alvarez2024ultrasound}, it introduces substantial perceptual–motor demands. Trainees must coordinate both hands, maintain the needle within a narrow imaging plane, and interpret dynamic 2D images to make accurate 3D spatial judgments~\cite{leibowitz2020ultrasound}. Novices often struggle with probe alignment, depth perception, and consistent needle visualization, and traditional training methods (e.g., mannequins and instructor-led sessions) provide limited feedback and insight into subsurface anatomy~\cite{mckinney2023standardized, hemingway2024ultrasound}.
Virtual reality (VR) enables procedural training by simulating complex environments, visualizing hidden anatomy, and allowing unlimited, risk-free practice~\cite{andersen2021teaching, liu2023effectiveness, chang2024impact}. It provides controlled anatomy, real-time feedback, and standardized conditions—key for ultrasound-guided PIVC, which requires integrated spatial, motor, and visual skills. However, many VR simulators prioritize workflow replication over learning progression, motivation, and error correction, risking disengagement and reinforcement of poor technique.
% We present a gamified VR system for training ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion, targeting core sub-skills (probe–needle coordination, venipuncture, and alignment) with real-time ultrasound simulation and engagement features like guidance, progress tracking, and performance-based levels.
We present a gamified VR training system for ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion that supports key sub-skills, including probe–needle coordination, venipuncture, and spatial alignment, through real-time simulated ultrasound visualization. Gamified elements are designed as task-aligned feedback, including alignment guidance, progress indicators, and performance summaries, to support engagement and learning without compromising procedural realism. We evaluate the system through controlled user studies with novices and clinical professionals, assessing its impact on performance, workload, usability, and user experience. Results indicate that gamified feedback improves procedural efficiency, reduces workload, and enhances user experience across expertise levels. Our contributions are: (1) a VR training system integrating real-time ultrasound simulation with task-aligned gamified feedback for perceptual–motor learning, and (2) empirical evidence demonstrating its effectiveness across novice and expert users.
\section{Related Works}
\subsection{Training in VR}
VR has strong potential to transform instructional and professional training and remains central in HCI research~\cite{regal2022vr}. It is increasingly adopted across domains—from classrooms to high-stakes operations—because it reduces costs while delivering rich experiential learning~\cite{xie2021review, fujiwara2024virtual, long2025application}. Prior work shows VR improves skill acquisition, retention, and transfer~\cite{lawson2016future, nguyen2021stress}, largely through controlled environments that enable unlimited, repeatable practice~\cite{murtinger2021cbrne}. These advantages make VR especially effective for complex or high-risk domains where real-world training is difficult to replicate safely~\cite{grabowski2015virtual, nguyen2021stress, regal2022challenges}.
A key strength of VR is its ability to create engaging, memorable learning by turning learners into active participants in multi-sensory environments, visual, auditory, tactile, and in some systems, olfactory or nociceptive~\cite{uhl2022threat, alwashmi2024enhancing}. Such immersion supports diverse learning styles, strengthens retention~\cite{marougkas2025adaptive, maddalon2024exploring, regal2022marcus}, and enables continuous adaptive feedback critical for healthcare training~\cite{nasri2025towards, lindner2025knowledge}. As a result, healthcare has emerged as a promising application area, offering reduced cost and liability alongside advanced performance analytics. However, VR medical education remains relatively early-stage and requires further empirical validation and pedagogically grounded design. Existing applications span procedural training (e.g., surgery, resuscitation, dialysis)~\cite{harrington2018development, jaskiewicz2019applicability, papagiannakis2020mages, chheang2021collaborative, al2021healthcare, bucher2019vreanimate, rettinger2021vr} and conceptual learning (e.g., diagnosis and anatomy)~\cite{makled2019pathogenius, izard2016virtual}.
\subsection{Gamification}
Gamification is widely recognized as a technique for increasing engagement, motivation, and retention in activities that might otherwise be perceived as tedious~\cite{hamari2014does}. Deterding et al.~\cite{deterding2011game} defined gamification as ``\textit{the use of game design elements in non-game contexts},'' later extending it to designing for gamefulness driven by challenge, fantasy, and curiosity~\cite{deterding2014eudaimonic}. Similarly, Houtari and Hamari~\cite{huotari2012defining} framed gamification as enhancing services with motivational affordances to promote behavioral outcomes. Both perspectives emphasize leveraging game-like experiences to harness engagement~\cite{ryan2006motivational}. Early work suggested elements such as points, badges, and progress indicators fulfill competence needs under Self-Determination Theory~\cite{ryan2006motivational}, though Mekler et al.~\cite{mekler2013points} showed performance gains do not always translate to perceived competence. This prompted theory-driven investigations using Goal-Setting Theory~\cite{landers2017gamification, hamari2017badges} and combined SDT–Signaling perspectives~\cite{cruz2017need}. Overall, research indicates gamification can enhance productivity and engagement—particularly for users receptive to gameful experiences—through intrinsic and extrinsic motivators such as feedback and progress visualization, leading to widespread adoption in education, healthcare, and business~\cite{hamari2014does, fang2021hci, johnson2016gamification, zichermann2020gamification}, with effectiveness varying by context and user characteristics~\cite{deterding2011game, hamari2014does}.
From an implementation perspective, gamification integrates game-inspired mechanics into existing activities, typically using feedback and performance indicators such as points, badges, and leaderboards (PBL)~\cite{deterding2011game, hamari2014does, seaborn2015gamification}. However, PBL has been criticized as superficial and overly outcome-focused~\cite{deterding2014eudaimonic, seaborn2015gamification, thibault2021seven}. In response, researchers have explored social and affective strategies, including social reinforcement and enhanced audiovisual feedback. For instance, Hicks et al.~\cite{hicks2019juicy} proposed \textit{juicy design}, which uses rich audiovisual effects to strengthen engagement and game feel~\cite{gabler2005prototype, hicks2019juicy}. In this work, we combine performance-focused gamification (e.g., PBL) with juicy design, a hybrid approach well suited to immersive simulations. Such environments naturally afford playful, rule-governed interaction contexts~\cite{deterding2011game, hamari2014does}. Accordingly, we apply this combined strategy to gamify an existing ultrasound-guided VR catheter-insertion simulation.
\subsection{Effects of Gamification on Learning}
Gamification integrates game elements into non-game contexts to enhance motivation and engagement, closely tied to gamefulness~\cite{deterding2011game, huotari2012defining}. In education, it leverages active learning and motivational psychology to improve outcomes, interest, self-efficacy, and focus, while promoting positive behaviors~\cite{hamari2014does, karimov2024gamification, li2024gamification}. Despite noted limitations, it is best viewed as a complement to traditional pedagogy and is widely applied across educational contexts~\cite{putra2025gamification, diaz2024meta, lampropoulos2024impact, furkan2025meta}.
\section{Virtual Reality Simulation of Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Insertion}\label{sec:design}
To translate the perceptual–motor demands of ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion into VR, we designed a simulation emphasizing real-time needle visualization, probe–needle coordination, and spatial alignment. Because continuous needle-tip visibility is critical for safe cannulation, the system focuses on the \textbf{In-Plane (Longitudinal)} technique, which provides a full view of the vessel and advancing needle (see~\autoref{fig:system}). In the In-Plane approach, the probe is aligned parallel to the vein, enabling continuous tracking of the needle for precise control. In contrast, the Out-of-Plane method provides limited visibility and feedback, making it less suitable for novices; thus, our simulation focuses on the In-Plane technique.
The system renders ultrasound images in real time based on probe pose, allowing users to interpret anatomy and adjust needle trajectory. It targets core skills, probe stability, in-plane alignment, and response to dynamic feedback, within a controlled, repeatable environment.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.5\linewidth]{figures/System_Illustration.png}
\caption{Technical setup of the VR ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion simulation.}
\label{fig:system}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Technical Setup}
The simulation was built in \textit{Unity 2022.3} with the \textit{PlusToolkit Ultrasound Simulator} and ran on a high-performance PC, ensuring stable real-time rendering. A Meta Quest 3 headset (connected via Quest Link) enabled immersive 6DoF interaction with low latency. Ultrasound images were generated in real time through OpenIGTLink streaming, and the anatomically accurate forearm model ran at a steady 90 Hz for smooth interaction.
A virtual medical classroom was created with a full-body mannequin on a hospital bed and an anatomically detailed forearm to enhance realism and ergonomics. Participants used controllers to operate the probe (non-dominant hand) and needle (dominant hand), with visible virtual hands supporting spatial awareness. The scene included an examination setup and real-time ultrasound display, while controller input enabled precise, consistent interaction. While the simulation provides real-time visual and auditory feedback for needle advancement, it does not currently model haptic resistance (e.g., tissue penetration forces during needle insertion), as standard VR controllers do not support force feedback.
\subsubsection{Simulated Catheter Insertion Process}\label{sec:standard}
The simulation reproduced the key stages of ultrasound-guided PIVC insertion: vein localization, probe alignment, needle advancement, and confirmation of successful cannulation. Participants first identified a target vein using the virtual ultrasound probe, with the image updating dynamically based on probe pose relative to the mannequin arm. The system supported both Out-of-Plane (cross-sectional) and In-Plane (longitudinal) views to realistically depict subcutaneous anatomy.
Users initially located the vein in the Out-of-Plane view, where it appeared as a circular cross-section, then rotated the probe into the In-Plane configuration to align the beam parallel to the vessel and maintain continuous needle visualization during insertion. Visual and auditory feedback marked key milestones: successful vein entry triggered realistic ultrasound deformation and a brief confirmation sound. After each successful insertion, probe and needle interactions were temporarily disabled for five seconds and automatically reset, allowing brief reflection while maintaining consistent trial pacing.
\subsubsection{Catheter Insertion Settings}
To ensure consistency with real-world applications, the virtual environment allowed participants to align the simulated setup with their physical workspace. The scene depicted a hospital bed with a mannequin, which participants aligned to their real table surface to match reach distance and ergonomics. Using the \textit{left controller’s index trigger}, participants grabbed the ultrasound probe, positioned their hand on the physical table, and adjusted bed height via three virtual buttons (raise, lower, auto-align) to calibrate the interaction plane with the virtual arm.
After alignment, participants scanned the forearm in the Out-of-Plane view to locate a vessel, then rotated the probe to the In-Plane orientation for longitudinal visualization. For insertion, they used the \textit{right controller’s index trigger} to grasp and advance the needle, which remained active only while held to preserve realistic control. The system provided two ultrasound displays—a fixed large monitor and a movable tablet viewer that could be repositioned with the right controller for flexible viewing. Throughout each session, the system logged total attempts, success events, probe alignment, and insertion time; however, this study reports insertion time as the primary outcome because it directly reflects procedural efficiency, while other metrics supported validation and feedback.
\subsection{Designing the Gamified Simulation}
The gamified version extended the base simulation with motivational feedback and structured progression while preserving procedural realism. The goal was to enhance engagement and learning through goal-oriented feedback and adaptive guidance without compromising medical fidelity. Gamification was integrated at both the visual and interaction levels.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
% \includegraphics[height=0.3\linewidth]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/Virtual_Env.png}
\caption{Gamified VR interface showing real-time ultrasound imaging, star-based feedback, needle and probe positions, and task progress indicators.}
\label{fig:gamified_interface}
\end{figure}
A \textbf{cumulative progress-based feedback system} displayed five hollow stars at the start of each level; each successful insertion permanently filled one of five progress stars, which briefly turned gold (for 5~s) to provide immediate visual reinforcement before remaining filled to indicate cumulative progress (Figure~\ref{fig:gamified_interface}). Stars accumulated across attempts are not time-dependent, meaning users are not required to achieve consecutive successes within a time window. To support motor precision, we implemented a \textbf{landing window} guidance mechanism~\cite{doesburg2025landing}: as the catheter approached the target, a semi-transparent circular guide appeared and changed color—green for optimal alignment and red for misalignment—then faded as alignment improved (Figure~\ref{fig:landing_window}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.4\linewidth]{figures/Guiding_Feedback.png}
\caption{The landing-window alignment mechanism. (a) The triangular landing window appears when guidance is enabled, providing a target zone for correct needle approach. (b) As the needle advances through the window along the correct trajectory, the guide gradually disappears.
}
\label{fig:landing_window}
\end{figure}
After each level, participants viewed a \textbf{performance summary} showing attempts, successful insertions, and completion time, along with a tiered digital badge (e.g., \textit{Apprentice} to \textit{Grandmaster}) to support reflection and sustained motivation. Subtle success tones complemented the visuals. All metrics were logged using the same architecture as the base simulation to ensure direct comparability between conditions while maintaining medical authenticity.
\section{Motivation and Hypothesis}
Effective VR medical training requires not only procedural realism but also engagement, structured feedback, and motivational support. Although VR enables safe, repeatable practice for ultrasound-guided catheter insertion, learners may struggle to track progress or maintain focus. Gamification addresses these gaps through goal structures and feedback cues; therefore, we compared a standard (non-gamified) simulation (\autoref{sec:design}) with a gamified variant.
Using a between-subjects design with one independent variable \textit{Condition} (\textit{Standard} vs.\ \textit{Gamified}), we adopted a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative metrics and post-session interviews. We evaluated effects on \textit{task performance}, \textit{usability perception}, and \textit{player experience} through two research questions.
\textbf{RQ1. Does gamification enhance procedural performance efficiency during ultrasound-guided catheter insertion in VR?} Prior work indicates gamification can accelerate learning and improve motor coordination through immediate feedback and structured progression~\cite{pimentel2024gamification, merino2025enhancing}. We hypothesize: \textit{H1a:} Gamification improves task performance; \textit{H1b:} Gamification improves learning progression across levels.
\textbf{RQ2. How does gamification influence subjective experience (usability, workload, engagement)?} Prior research shows that well-designed rewards and feedback can increase usability, reduce cognitive workload, and foster intrinsic motivation~\cite{sailer2017gamification, krath2021revealing, li2024gamification}. Accordingly, we hypothesize: \textit{H2a:} VR catheter gamification increases usability and \textit{H2b:} reduces perceived workload.
\section{Study – 1: Impact of Gamification on Ultrasound-Guided Catheter Insertion on Novices}
\subsection{Measures}
We used mixed quantitative and qualitative measures to evaluate performance, usability, workload, and experience. Objective performance was assessed via \textbf{Insertion Time (IT)}, defined as the time from initiation to successful insertion, reset after each success and averaged per participant and level. Subjective experience was measured using the \textit{System Usability Scale (SUS)}~\cite{lewis2018system}, \textit{Player Experience Inventory (PXI)}~\cite{vanden2020development}, and \textit{NASA-TLX}~\cite{hart1988development}, complemented by brief post-session interviews.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9 \linewidth]{figures/Study-Procedure.png}
\caption{Overview of the Study procedure.}
\label{fig:study_procedure}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Participants}
An a priori power analysis ($d = 0.5$, power = 0.8, $\alpha = .05$)~\cite{faul2007g} indicated a minimum sample of 24, which we recruited using snowball sampling via social media and word-of-mouth. Participants were novices aged 20–40 years ($M$ = 26.38, $SD$ = 4.48), including 11 males and 13 females from diverse professional backgrounds (e.g., engineering, advertising, customer service). All participants were right-handed, with 19 reporting right-eye dominance. Twenty had normal vision, and four had corrected-to-normal vision. Prior VR experience varied: seven had none, six had used VR 1–5 times, and eleven more than five times. Sixteen participants played digital games at least monthly (mobile: 12; PC: 15; VR: 2), and eight also reported playing board games, with genres including RTS, RPG, FPS, and arcade.
\subsection{Procedure}
Participants completed a 45-minute session in either a \textsc{Standard} or \textsc{Gamified} condition. After consent, they received a briefing and watched a recorded VR catheter insertion demo, followed by a brief training phase to familiarize them with the system and reduce novelty effects. They then completed a demographic questionnaire and proceeded to their assigned condition, with group allocation balanced via a Latin Square (Figure~\ref{fig:study_procedure}). For all tasks, participants aimed to perform insertions as quickly and accurately as possible; pre- and post-insertion tasks required a successful attempt, with retries allowed until success. This study was approved by the institutional research ethics board.
\paragraph{Standard Condition.}
Participants performed ultrasound-guided insertions without gamified elements, e.g., no scores, rewards, or visual guidance, across five stages: a \textit{pre-insertion} baseline (one insertion), three practice levels, and a \textit{post-insertion} task identical to the baseline. \textit{Level 1} required five successful insertions at a natural pace; \textit{Level 2} required five insertions emphasizing both speed and accuracy; and \textit{Level 3} allowed five minutes to complete as many successful insertions as possible.
\paragraph{Gamified Condition.}
The task sequence matched the \textsc{Standard} condition but included gamification elements such as star rewards, auditory cues, landing-window guidance, performance summaries, and tiered badges. The \textit{pre-insertion} level remained ungamified. In \textit{Level 1}, each successful insertion turned a hollow star gold and triggered brief feedback, while a triangular landing window appeared near the target and faded when alignment was correct. At level completion, participants received a summary of attempts, successes, time, and a performance badge. \textit{Levels 2} and \textit{3} repeated these mechanics under speed–accuracy instructions and a five-minute performance window, respectively. The session concluded with the \textit{post-insertion} level. Across levels, multimodal feedback (visual, auditory, symbolic) aimed to enhance engagement and learning while preserving medical realism.
\subsection {Results}
Data were preprocessed and visualized in JMP and analyzed in SPSS 29.0. Normality was assessed using skewness and kurtosis $\pm1$; non-normal data were log-transformed.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
% mode $\times$ sub
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[height=.95\linewidth]{figures/Time-S.png}
\caption{}\label{fig:time-non-expert}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[height=0.8\linewidth]{figures/Time-S-L.png}
\caption{}\label{fig:time-level-non-expert}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Insertion time results (in seconds) across conditions and levels. (a) IT by condition. (b) IT across levels.}
\label{fig:TCT}
\end{figure}
\textbf{IT:} A mixed ANOVA showed a significant main effect of Condition, $(F(1,22)=6.79,~p<.001,~\eta^2_{p}=.236)$, with the \textsc{Gamified} group completing insertions faster $(M=46.57,~SE=2.94)$ than the \textsc{Standard} group $(M=57.41,~SE=2.94)$ (\autoref{fig:time-non-expert}). A significant main effect of Level was also observed, $(F(4,88)=28.58,~p<.001,~\eta^2_{p}=.565)$, indicating learning over trials. The Condition $\times$ Level interaction was significant, $(F(4,88)=16.34,~p<.001,~\eta^2_{p}=.426)$, with group differences emerging at Level~3 $(p<.031)$ and the Post-level $(p<.001)$ but not earlier levels (\autoref{fig:time-level-non-expert}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{SUS-S.png}
\caption{SUS scores (a) across conditions and (b) individual items.}
\label{fig:SUS-S}
\end{figure}
\textbf{SUS:} A Friedman test revealed a significant effect of Condition, $(\chi^2(1)=11.00,~p<.001)$, with higher usability ratings in the \textsc{Gamified} condition (\autoref{fig:SUS-S}a). \autoref{tab:sus_s1} summarizes SUS scores and usability grades.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{SUS Scores and Grades for two catheter insertion condition.}
\label{tab:sus_s1}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
Condition & Score & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Grade} \\ \hline
\textbf{Gamified} & 78.54 & \textit{B} \\ \hline
\textbf{Standard} & 58.13 & \textit{D} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\end{table}
We observed significant differences across several SUS items between conditions (\autoref{fig:SUS-S}b). Participants preferred the \textsc{Gamified} condition for Q1 (frequency of use; $Z=-2.310,~p<0.021$). The \textsc{Standard} condition was rated as more complex (Q2; $Z=-2.565,~p<0.010$), requiring more technical support (Q4; $Z=-2.588,~p<0.010$), more inconsistent (Q6; $Z=-2.970,~p<0.003$), more cumbersome (Q8; $Z=-2.762,~p<0.006$), and requiring more learning before use (Q10; $Z=-2.373,~p<0.018$).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\linewidth]{figures/NASA-S.png}
\caption{NASA TLX results commparing \textsc{Gamified} and \textsc{Standard} conditions.}
\label{fig:nasa-s}
\end{figure}
\textbf{NASA TLX:} A Friedman test showed a significant overall workload difference between \textsc{Gamified} and \textsc{Standard} ($\chi^2(1)=4.455,~p<0.035$), with participants reporting lower workload in the \textsc{Gamified} condition (\autoref{fig:nasa-s}). Wilcoxon tests indicated significantly lower effort ($Z=-2.854,~p<0.004$), frustration ($Z=-2.809,~p<0.005$), and temporal demand ($Z=-2.555,~p<0.011$), alongside higher perceived performance ($Z=-2.149,~p<0.032$) in the \textsc{Gamified} condition. Mental and physical demand differences were not significant, suggesting comparable cognitive and physical requirements across systems.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.85\linewidth]{figures/PXI-S.png}
\caption{PXI results for \textsc{Gamified} and \textsc{Standard} conditions.}
\label{fig:pxi-s}
\end{figure}
\textbf{PXI:} The 33-item PXI was analyzed using independent-samples t-tests between \textsc{Gamified} and \textsc{Standard}. Significant effects favored the \textsc{Gamified} condition (\autoref{fig:pxi-s}), including higher appeal $(t(22)=2.97,~p<.008)$, challenge $(t(22)=4.52,~p<.001)$, clarity of goals $(t(22)=7.98,~p<.001)$, enjoyment $(t(22)=3.12,~p<.005)$, immersion $(t(22)=3.45,~p<.002)$, and mastery $(t(22)=2.79,~p<.010)$. Differences in autonomy, curiosity, and relatedness were not significant after Holm correction. Overall, gamification improved experiential quality—enhancing engagement, competence, goal clarity, and enjoyment—whereas the \textsc{Standard} condition showed weaker immersion and feedback perception.
\textbf{Interview:} Participants in the \textsc{Gamified} condition consistently reported higher engagement, motivation, and clearer performance awareness. They noted that game elements made the task more enjoyable and informative (e.g., P2), and that real-time cues helped them understand progress and success (P5). Visible scoring and progression improved goal clarity and motivation (P9), with some participants reporting increased focus on performance improvement across levels (P11). The experience also heightened appreciation of the real-world difficulty of the procedure (P12).
In contrast, \textsc{Standard} participants frequently reported uncertainty, difficulty, and lower engagement. Several described repeated attempts without clear feedback (P1), challenges interpreting the ultrasound view (P4), and uncertainty about correct execution (P5). Participants explicitly requested more guidance and alerts (P6) and noted frustration when progress stalled (P9), indicating that the lack of reinforcing feedback reduced clarity and motivation.
\subsection{Discussion}
Study~1 demonstrates that gamification benefits novice users across performance, usability, workload, and experiential quality. Participants in the gamified condition completed tasks faster, reported higher usability, experienced lower workload on several dimensions, and showed stronger engagement and goal clarity. These findings suggest that gamification effectively supports early skill acquisition in ultrasound-guided catheter insertion. To examine whether these benefits extend to trained clinicians, we conducted a second study with experienced medical professionals.
\section{Study - 2: Impact of Gamification on Ultrasound-Guided Catheter Insertion on Experts}
\subsection{Overview and Motivation}
Study~2 investigated whether the benefits observed with novices extend to expert clinicians. Unlike novices, experts possess established procedural knowledge, refined perceptual–motor skills, and strong mental models of catheter insertion, which may alter their response to motivational cues and feedback. Accordingly, this study examines whether gamification continues to affect performance, workload, and user experience when baseline proficiency is high.
\subsection{Participants}
An a priori power analysis (Cohen’s $d=0.5$, power = 0.8, $\alpha=0.05$)~\cite{faul2007g} indicated a minimum sample of twelve. We recruited 12 expert participants via professional networks and clinician invitations. Participants were aged 25–63 years ($M=37.08$, $SD=11.16$) and included 10 males and 2 females from diverse medical and technical backgrounds. All were right-handed; ten reported right-eye dominance and two left-eye dominance. Seven had normal vision and five had corrected-to-normal vision, with no reported color or binocular impairments. Most had no prior VR experience (9), while two had limited exposure (1–5 times) and one reported more than five uses. None reported regular digital gameplay.
\subsection{Results}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
% mode $\times$ sub
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[height=.95\linewidth]{figures/Time-E.png}
\caption{}\label{fig:time-expert}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.05\textwidth}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.4\columnwidth}
\includegraphics[height=0.8\linewidth]{figures/Time-E-L.png}
\caption{}\label{fig:time-level-expert}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{IT results for expert participants. (a) Mean IT by condition. (b) IT across levels.}
\label{fig:TCT-E}
\end{figure}
\textbf{IT:} A mixed ANOVA showed a significant main effect of Condition, $(F(1,10)=11.21,~p<.007,~\eta^2_{p}=.528)$, with the \textsc{Gamified} group completing tasks faster $(M=45)$ than the \textsc{Standard} group $(M=75)$ (\autoref{fig:time-expert}), indicating improved procedural fluency even among experts. A significant main effect of Level was also observed, $(F(2.97,29.74)=17.79,~p<.001,~\eta^2=.640)$, reflecting progressive learning; Bonferroni tests showed post-level performance $(M=4.60)$ was significantly faster than Levels~1–3 $(p<.001)$.
The Condition $\times$ Level interaction was significant, $(F(2.97,29.74)=11.48,~p<.001,~\eta^2=.534)$, indicating different improvement rates across conditions (\autoref{fig:time-level-expert}). Both groups improved, but the \textsc{Gamified} group showed faster gains and consistently lower ITs. In\textsc{Gamified} condition, we observed significant difference for L2 $(p<.022)$, L3 $(p<.001)$, L4 $(p<.023)$, and Post $(p<.022)$, indicating gamification benefits in later stages.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figures/SUS-E.png}
\caption{SUS results for expert participants. (a) Overall scores show higher usability for the \textsc{Gamified} condition. (b) Item-wise ratings (Q1–Q10).}
\label{fig:SUS-E}
\end{figure}
\textbf{SUS:} A Friedman test revealed a significant usability difference ($\chi^2(1)=6.00,~p<.014$), with experts rating the \textsc{Gamified} system higher. The \textsc{Gamified} condition achieved a mean SUS of 74 (``Good'') versus 54 (``Poor'') for \textsc{Standard} (\autoref{fig:SUS-E}a, \autoref{tab:sus_s2}).
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{SUS Scores and Grades for two catheter insertion conditions.}
\label{tab:sus_s2}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
Condition & Score & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Grade} \\ \hline
\textbf{Gamified} & 74.58 & \textit{B} \\ \hline
\textbf{Standard} & 52.08 & \textit{D} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
\end{table}
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests on SUS items showed significant differences for Q8 (“cumbersome”; $Z=-2.27,~p<.023$) and Q10 (“needed to learn a lot”; $Z=-2.23,~p<.026$), both favoring the \textsc{Gamified} condition (\autoref{fig:SUS-E}b). While other items were not significant, the overall trend favored gamification, indicating improved usability and learnability even for experts.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\linewidth]{figures/NASA-E.png}
\caption{NASA TLX results comparing \textsc{Gamified} and \textsc{Standard} conditions for expert participants.}
\label{fig:nasa-e}
\end{figure}
\textbf{NASA-TLX:} A Friedman test showed a significant workload difference between conditions $(\chi^2(1)=6.00,~p<.014)$, with experts reporting lower workload in the \textsc{Gamified} condition (\autoref{fig:nasa-e}). Mean scores were lower across most dimensions, suggesting game-based feedback reduced cognitive and physical strain.
Wilcoxon tests identified significant reductions in Frustration $(Z=-2.02,~p<.043)$, Mental Demand $(Z=-2.04,~p<.041)$, Physical Demand $(Z=-2.06,~p<.039)$, and Temporal Demand $(Z=-1.99,~p<.046)$ for the \textsc{Gamified} condition. Overall, gamification produced a more balanced workload profile, indicating that even experts benefited from structured feedback and progression cues during repetitive procedural tasks.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{figures/PXI-E.png}
\caption{PXI results comparing \textsc{Gamified} and \textsc{Standard} conditions for expert participants.}
\label{fig:pxi-e}
\end{figure}
\textbf{PXI:} Results indicate that gamification improved player experience, particularly on functional dimensions. Compared to \textsc{Standard}, the \textsc{Gamified} condition showed significantly higher Clarity of Goals $(t(10)=3.927,~p<.001)$, Challenge $(t(10)=2.577,~p<.028)$, Appeal $(t(10)=2.966,~p<.008)$, Progress Feedback $(t(10)=3.191,~p<.001)$, and Enjoyment $(t(10)=3.833,~p<.001)$. No psychological consequence measures reached significance.
Experts in the \textsc{Gamified} condition reported stronger control, clearer objectives, and more rewarding feedback, whereas participants reported lower motivation and structure in \textsc{Standard} condition. The largest gains occurred in Clarity of Goals $(\Delta M=2.28)$ and Progress Feedback $(\Delta M=1.61)$, highlighting the role of feedback and achievement cues.
\textbf{Interview:} Expert participants noted differences between VR and real practice but still recognized the system’s training value. Some highlighted realism limitations (e.g., fixed needle path) while acknowledging the gamified appeal and usefulness for training (P2), and others described the experience as engaging yet improvable (P3). Participants also contrasted gamified progress cues with real-world uncertainty, noting reduced stress when feedback was visible (P6).
In contrast, experts in the \textsc{Standard} condition were more critical, citing oversensitivity, reduced realism, and lower engagement. Some found the interaction harder than real practice (P1), raised concerns about repeated failed insertions (P2), and reported unclear instructions and targets that hindered focus (P5). Overall, these findings indicate that gamification enhanced expert user experience by improving goal awareness, perceived competence, and engagement, key drivers of intrinsic motivation and flow.
\section{Discussion}
This work examined how gamification through visual cues, auditory reinforcement, and level-based progression affects performance, workload, and experiential quality in VR ultrasound-guided PIVC training. Across studies with novices (Study~1) and experts (Study~2), results show that well-designed gamification improves procedural efficiency, reduces perceived workload, and enhances usability and experience, though via different mechanisms. Unlike prior VR medical training that emphasizes passive realism or instructor-led debriefing~\cite{seymour2002virtual, mcgaghie2010critical, lateef2010simulation, alaker2016virtual}, our findings highlight the value of \textit{continuous formative feedback} that makes progress and alignment perceptually explicit, supporting self-regulated learning.
\subsection{Effects on Novice Training and Early Skill Acquisition}
Study~1 showed novices in the \textsc{Gamified} condition completed insertions significantly faster, with larger gains in later practice stages. While both groups improved, structured feedback (stars, alignment cues, summaries) accelerated spatial understanding and procedural sequencing, supporting \textbf{H1a} and \textbf{H1b}. The consistent speed–accuracy instruction across all phases reduces the likelihood that post-task performance differences are solely attributable to fatigue or disengagement. Subjective results aligned with performance: novices rated the gamified system as more usable and easier to learn, with lower NASA-TLX effort, frustration, and temporal demand. Consistent with Flow theory~\cite{csikszentmihalyi1997flow}, clear goals and immediate feedback reduced uncertainty and cognitive overhead. PXI findings (higher clarity, challenge, immersion, mastery) further suggest gamification acted as instructional scaffolding, helping novices build competence and mental models. Collectively, these findings support \textbf{H2a} and \textbf{H2b}, demonstrating that gamified feedback enhances perceived usability while reducing subjective workload during early skill acquisition.
\subsection{Effects on Expert Performance and Skill Reinforcement}
Study~2 demonstrated that gamification also benefited experts. The \textsc{Gamified} group showed faster completion times, particularly in later levels requiring sustained precision. Here, gamification did not teach procedural knowledge but streamlined execution by reducing self-monitoring demands and stabilizing pacing. Experts rated the gamified system as more usable and less cumbersome, with significantly lower mental, physical, temporal demand, and frustration. PXI gains in clarity of goals, challenge, enjoyment, feedback, and appeal indicate that even experienced users value structured progress cues, especially during repetitive tasks.
Experts in the \textsc{Standard} condition showed longer insertion times than both gamified experts and novices, likely due to lower familiarity with VR rather than lack of expertise. Unlike novices, who reported greater exposure to gaming and interactive systems, experts often had minimal VR experience and may have relied on real-world habits that did not transfer well to VR, increasing interaction overhead. In contrast, gamified feedback offered clear guidance and progress cues, reducing interpretation effort and improving efficiency. The consistent gains in the \textsc{Gamified} condition across both groups indicate that its benefits extend beyond VR familiarity, supporting both learning and performance.
\subsection{Cross-Study Synthesis}
The studies reveal that VR gamification improves outcomes for both novices and experts, but through distinct pathways. For novices, it functions as \textit{instructional scaffolding}, making alignment and success criteria explicit and supporting confidence formation. For experts, it acts as \textit{cognitive optimization}, reducing workload and sustaining focus during repeated performance. Importantly, these benefits did not compromise clinical authenticity, a common concern in medical gamification~\cite{deterding2011game, nacke2017maturing, sailer2017gamification}. When semantically aligned with task goals (e.g., alignment guides, progress indicators), gamified elements enhanced rather than distracted from procedural engagement. Overall, the findings demonstrate that perceptually salient, real-time feedback can support users across expertise levels, improving both early skill acquisition and expert performance consistency in VR medical training.
\section{Limitations and Future Works}
This work employed a lightweight gamification approach focused on real-time instructional feedback rather than richer mechanics~\cite{deterding2011game, hamari2014does, seaborn2015gamification}, which may limit generalizability to more intensive designs (e.g., competitive or social features). The simulation also used a single-arm model with fixed vascular anatomy, reducing ecological validity given real-world variability~\cite{fields2014risk, ji2025risk}. Additionally, the study evaluated only immediate procedural performance, with a modest expert sample and no assessment of long-term learning or clinical reasoning. Future work should explore alternative gamification strategies, incorporate anatomical variability and dynamic scenarios, and involve larger, more diverse cohorts in longitudinal studies. The use of handheld VR controllers may also limit motor fidelity, as fine-grained hand movements and tactile precision required in real needle manipulation are not fully replicated, potentially affecting skill transfer.
Another limitation is the potential for negative transfer, as gamified cues (e.g., alignment guidance and progress indicators) are absent in real clinical settings and may foster reliance. However, these elements serve as formative scaffolding for early skill acquisition. Future work should explore adaptive or fading feedback to support transfer, along with reflection and debriefing mechanisms to promote deeper learning~\cite{fragkos2016reflective, ooi2021systematic}.
\section{Conclusion}
We empirically evaluated a gamified ultrasound-guided catheter insertion simulator with novices and clinicians. Results show that goal-aligned visual and auditory feedback improved procedural efficiency, reduced workload, and enhanced usability and experience without compromising realism. Rather than serving as superficial motivation, gamification acted as formative feedback, supporting novice learning and improving expert fluency. Overall, these findings can be used to improve the training systems for catheter insertion to increase performance and user experience.
% \subsection{Maintaining the Integrity of the Specifications}
% The IEEEtran class file is used to format your paper and style the text. All margins,
% column widths, line spaces, and text fonts are prescribed; please do not
% alter them. You may note peculiarities. For example, the head margin
% measures proportionately more than is customary. This measurement
% and others are deliberate, using specifications that anticipate your paper
% as one part of the entire proceedings, and not as an independent document.
% Please do not revise any of the current designations.
% \section{Prepare Your Paper Before Styling}
% Before you begin to format your paper, first write and save the content as a
% separate text file. Complete all content and organizational editing before
% formatting. Please note sections \ref{AA} to \ref{FAT} below for more information on
% proofreading, spelling and grammar.
% Keep your text and graphic files separate until after the text has been
% formatted and styled. Do not number text heads---{\LaTeX} will do that
% for you.
% \subsection{Abbreviations and Acronyms}\label{AA}
% Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text,
% even after they have been defined in the abstract. Abbreviations such as
% IEEE, SI, MKS, CGS, ac, dc, and rms do not have to be defined. Do not use
% abbreviations in the title or heads unless they are unavoidable.
% \subsection{Units}
% \begin{itemize}
% \item Use either SI (MKS) or CGS as primary units. (SI units are encouraged.) English units may be used as secondary units (in parentheses). An exception would be the use of English units as identifiers in trade, such as ``3.5-inch disk drive''.
% \item Avoid combining SI and CGS units, such as current in amperes and magnetic field in oersteds. This often leads to confusion because equations do not balance dimensionally. If you must use mixed units, clearly state the units for each quantity that you use in an equation.
% \item Do not mix complete spellings and abbreviations of units: ``Wb/m\textsuperscript{2}'' or ``webers per square meter'', not ``webers/m\textsuperscript{2}''. Spell out units when they appear in text: ``. . . a few henries'', not ``. . . a few H''.
% \item Use a zero before decimal points: ``0.25'', not ``.25''. Use ``cm\textsuperscript{3}'', not ``cc''.)
% \end{itemize}
% \subsection{Equations}
% Number equations consecutively. To make your
% equations more compact, you may use the solidus (~/~), the exp function, or
% appropriate exponents. Italicize Roman symbols for quantities and variables,
% but not Greek symbols. Use a long dash rather than a hyphen for a minus
% sign. Punctuate equations with commas or periods when they are part of a
% sentence, as in:
% \begin{equation}
% a+b=\gamma\label{eq}
% \end{equation}
% Be sure that the
% symbols in your equation have been defined before or immediately following
% the equation. Use ``\eqref{eq}'', not ``Eq.~\eqref{eq}'' or ``equation \eqref{eq}'', except at
% the beginning of a sentence: ``Equation \eqref{eq} is . . .''
% \subsection{\LaTeX-Specific Advice}
% Please use ``soft'' (e.g., \verb|\eqref{Eq}|) cross references instead
% of ``hard'' references (e.g., \verb|(1)|). That will make it possible
% to combine sections, add equations, or change the order of figures or
% citations without having to go through the file line by line.
% Please don't use the \verb|{eqnarray}| equation environment. Use
% \verb|{align}| or \verb|{IEEEeqnarray}| instead. The \verb|{eqnarray}|
% environment leaves unsightly spaces around relation symbols.
% Please note that the \verb|{subequations}| environment in {\LaTeX}
% will increment the main equation counter even when there are no
% equation numbers displayed. If you forget that, you might write an
% article in which the equation numbers skip from (17) to (20), causing
% the copy editors to wonder if you've discovered a new method of
% counting.
% {\BibTeX} does not work by magic. It doesn't get the bibliographic
% data from thin air but from .bib files. If you use {\BibTeX} to produce a
% bibliography you must send the .bib files.
% {\LaTeX} can't read your mind. If you assign the same label to a
% subsubsection and a table, you might find that Table I has been cross
% referenced as Table IV-B3.
% {\LaTeX} does not have precognitive abilities. If you put a
% \verb|\label| command before the command that updates the counter it's
% supposed to be using, the label will pick up the last counter to be
% cross referenced instead. In particular, a \verb|\label| command
% should not go before the caption of a figure or a table.
% Do not use \verb|\nonumber| inside the \verb|{array}| environment. It
% will not stop equation numbers inside \verb|{array}| (there won't be
% any anyway) and it might stop a wanted equation number in the
% surrounding equation.
% \subsection{Some Common Mistakes}\label{SCM}
% \begin{itemize}
% \item The word ``data'' is plural, not singular.
% \item The subscript for the permeability of vacuum $\mu_{0}$, and other common scientific constants, is zero with subscript formatting, not a lowercase letter ``o''.
% \item In American English, commas, semicolons, periods, question and exclamation marks are located within quotation marks only when a complete thought or name is cited, such as a title or full quotation. When quotation marks are used, instead of a bold or italic typeface, to highlight a word or phrase, punctuation should appear outside of the quotation marks. A parenthetical phrase or statement at the end of a sentence is punctuated outside of the closing parenthesis (like this). (A parenthetical sentence is punctuated within the parentheses.)
% \item A graph within a graph is an ``inset'', not an ``insert''. The word alternatively is preferred to the word ``alternately'' (unless you really mean something that alternates).
% \item Do not use the word ``essentially'' to mean ``approximately'' or ``effectively''.
% \item In your paper title, if the words ``that uses'' can accurately replace the word ``using'', capitalize the ``u''; if not, keep using lower-cased.
% \item Be aware of the different meanings of the homophones ``affect'' and ``effect'', ``complement'' and ``compliment'', ``discreet'' and ``discrete'', ``principal'' and ``principle''.
% \item Do not confuse ``imply'' and ``infer''.
% \item The prefix ``non'' is not a word; it should be joined to the word it modifies, usually without a hyphen.
% \item There is no period after the ``et'' in the Latin abbreviation ``et al.''.
% \item The abbreviation ``i.e.'' means ``that is'', and the abbreviation ``e.g.'' means ``for example''.
% \end{itemize}
% An excellent style manual for science writers is \cite{b7}.
% \subsection{Authors and Affiliations}\label{AAA}
% \textbf{The class file is designed for, but not limited to, six authors.} A
% minimum of one author is required for all conference articles. Author names
% should be listed starting from left to right and then moving down to the
% next line. This is the author sequence that will be used in future citations
% and by indexing services. Names should not be listed in columns nor group by
% affiliation. Please keep your affiliations as succinct as possible (for
% example, do not differentiate among departments of the same organization).
% \subsection{Identify the Headings}\label{ITH}
% Headings, or heads, are organizational devices that guide the reader through
% your paper. There are two types: component heads and text heads.
% Component heads identify the different components of your paper and are not
% topically subordinate to each other. Examples include Acknowledgments and
% References and, for these, the correct style to use is ``Heading 5''. Use
% ``figure caption'' for your Figure captions, and ``table head'' for your
% table title. Run-in heads, such as ``Abstract'', will require you to apply a
% style (in this case, italic) in addition to the style provided by the drop
% down menu to differentiate the head from the text.
% Text heads organize the topics on a relational, hierarchical basis. For
% example, the paper title is the primary text head because all subsequent
% material relates and elaborates on this one topic. If there are two or more
% sub-topics, the next level head (uppercase Roman numerals) should be used
% and, conversely, if there are not at least two sub-topics, then no subheads
% should be introduced.
% \subsection{Figures and Tables}\label{FAT}
% \paragraph{Positioning Figures and Tables} Place figures and tables at the top and
% bottom of columns. Avoid placing them in the middle of columns. Large
% figures and tables may span across both columns. Figure captions should be
% below the figures; table heads should appear above the tables. Insert
% figures and tables after they are cited in the text. Use the abbreviation
% ``Fig.~\ref{fig}'', even at the beginning of a sentence.
% \begin{table}[htbp]
% \caption{Table Type Styles}
% \begin{center}
% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
% \hline
% \textbf{Table}&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\textbf{Table Column Head}} \\
% \cline{2-4}
% \textbf{Head} & \textbf{\textit{Table column subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}}& \textbf{\textit{Subhead}} \\
% \hline
% copy& More table copy$^{\mathrm{a}}$& & \\
% \hline
% \multicolumn{4}{l}{$^{\mathrm{a}}$Sample of a Table footnote.}
% \end{tabular}
% \label{tab1}
% \end{center}
% \end{table}
% \begin{figure}[htbp]
% \centerline{\includegraphics{fig1.png}}
% \caption{Example of a figure caption.}
% \label{fig}
% \end{figure}
% Figure Labels: Use 8 point Times New Roman for Figure labels. Use words
% rather than symbols or abbreviations when writing Figure axis labels to
% avoid confusing the reader. As an example, write the quantity
% ``Magnetization'', or ``Magnetization, M'', not just ``M''. If including
% units in the label, present them within parentheses. Do not label axes only
% with units. In the example, write ``Magnetization (A/m)'' or ``Magnetization
% \{A[m(1)]\}'', not just ``A/m''. Do not label axes with a ratio of
% quantities and units. For example, write ``Temperature (K)'', not
% ``Temperature/K''.
% \section*{Acknowledgment}
% The preferred spelling of the word ``acknowledgment'' in America is without
% an ``e'' after the ``g''. Avoid the stilted expression ``one of us (R. B.
% G.) thanks $\ldots$''. Instead, try ``R. B. G. thanks$\ldots$''. Put sponsor
% acknowledgments in the unnumbered footnote on the first page.
% \section*{References}
% Please number citations consecutively within brackets \cite{b1}. The
% sentence punctuation follows the bracket \cite{b2}. Refer simply to the reference
% number, as in \cite{b3}---do not use ``Ref. \cite{b3}'' or ``reference \cite{b3}'' except at
% the beginning of a sentence: ``Reference \cite{b3} was the first $\ldots$''
% Number footnotes separately in superscripts. Place the actual footnote at
% the bottom of the column in which it was cited. Do not put footnotes in the
% abstract or reference list. Use letters for table footnotes.
% Unless there are six authors or more give all authors' names; do not use
% ``et al.''. Papers that have not been published, even if they have been
% submitted for publication, should be cited as ``unpublished'' \cite{b4}. Papers
% that have been accepted for publication should be cited as ``in press'' \cite{b5}.
% Capitalize only the first word in a paper title, except for proper nouns and
% element symbols.
% For papers published in translation journals, please give the English
% citation first, followed by the original foreign-language citation \cite{b6}.
\begin{thebibliography}{00}
\bibitem{alexandrou2018use}
E.~Alexandrou, G.~Ray-Barruel, P.~J.~Carr, S.~A.~Frost, S.~Inwood, N.~Higgins, F.~Lin, L.~Alberto, L.~Mermel, C.~M.~Rickard, \emph{et al.},
``Use of short peripheral intravenous catheters: characteristics, management, and outcomes worldwide,''
\emph{Journal of Hospital Medicine},
vol.~13, no.~5, pp.~E1--E7, 2018.
\bibitem{indarwati2020incidence}
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,''
\emph{International Journal of Nursing Studies},
vol.~102, p.~103488, 2020.
\bibitem{skulec2020two}
R.~Skulec, J.~Callerova, P.~Vojtisek, 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,''
\emph{Internal and Emergency Medicine},
vol.~15, no.~2, pp.~303--310, 2020.
\bibitem{piredda2017factors}
M.~Piredda, V.~Biagioli, B.~Barrella, I.~Carpisassi, R.~Ghinelli, D.~Giannarelli, and M.~G.~De~Marinis,
``Factors affecting difficult peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults: a prospective observational study,''
\emph{Journal of Clinical Nursing},
vol.~26, no.~7--8, pp.~1074--1084, 2017.
\bibitem{alvarez2024ultrasound}
L.~{\'A}lvarez-Morales, J.~L.~G{\'o}mez-Urquiza, N.~Suleiman-Martos, M.~J.~Membrive-Jim{\'e}nez, A.~Gonz{\'a}lez-D{\'\i}az, R.~Garc{\'\i}a~P{\'e}rez, and A.~Li{\~n}{\'a}n-Gonzalez,
``Ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous canulation by emergency nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis,''
\emph{International Emergency Nursing},
vol.~73, p.~101422, 2024.
\bibitem{leibowitz2020ultrasound}
A.~Leibowitz, A.~Oren-Grinberg, and R.~Matyal,
``Ultrasound guidance for central venous access: current evidence and clinical recommendations,''
\emph{Journal of Intensive Care Medicine},
vol.~35, no.~3, pp.~303--321, 2020.
\bibitem{mckinney2023standardized}
A.~McKinney, K.~Steanson, and K.~Lebar,
``A standardized training program in ultrasound-guided intravenous line placement: improving nurses' confidence and success,''
\emph{Advances in Neonatal Care},
vol.~23, no.~1, pp.~17--22, 2023.
\bibitem{hemingway2024ultrasound}
N.~Hemingway,
\emph{Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Intravenous Insertion: An Alternative Approach to Reducing the Use of Central Venous Catheters},
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Saint Joseph, 2024.
\bibitem{andersen2021teaching}
N.~L.~Andersen, R.~O.~Jensen, S.~Posth, C.~B.~Laursen, R.~J{\o}rgensen, and O.~Graumann,
``Teaching ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter placement through immersive virtual reality: An explorative pilot study,''
\emph{Medicine},
vol.~100, no.~27, p.~e26394, 2021.
\bibitem{liu2023effectiveness}
K.~Liu, W.~Zhang, W.~Li, T.~Wang, and Y.~Zheng,
``Effectiveness of virtual reality in nursing education: a systematic review and meta-analysis,''
\emph{BMC Medical Education},
vol.~23, no.~1, p.~710, 2023.
\bibitem{chang2024impact}
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 administration: A mixed methods study,''
\emph{Nurse Education Today},
vol.~132, p.~106002, 2024.
\bibitem{deterding2011game}
S.~Deterding, D.~Dixon, R.~Khaled, and L.~Nacke,
``From game design elements to gamefulness: defining `gamification',''
in \emph{Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments},
pp.~9--15, 2011.
\bibitem{seaborn2015gamification}
K.~Seaborn and D.~I.~Fels,
``Gamification in theory and action: A survey,''
\emph{International Journal of Human-Computer Studies},
vol.~74, pp.~14--31, 2015.
\bibitem{regal2022vr}
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 \emph{CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts},
pp.~1--6, 2022.
\bibitem{xie2021review}
B.~Xie, H.~Liu, R.~Alghofaili, Y.~Zhang, Y.~Jiang, F.~D.~Lobo, C.~Li, W.~Li, H.~Huang, M.~Akdere, \emph{et al.},
``A review on virtual reality skill training applications,''
\emph{Frontiers in Virtual Reality},
vol.~2, p.~645153, 2021.
\bibitem{fujiwara2024virtual}
A.~Fujiwara, S.~Fujimoto, R.~Ishikawa, and A.~Tanaka,
``Virtual reality training for radiation safety in cardiac catheterization laboratories--an integrated study,''
\emph{Radiation Protection Dosimetry},
vol.~200, no.~15, pp.~1462--1469, 2024.
\bibitem{long2025application}
Y.~Long, X.~Zhang, and X.~Zeng,
``Application and effect analysis of virtual reality technology in vocational education practical training,''
\emph{Education and Information Technologies},
vol.~30, no.~7, pp.~9755--9786, 2025.
\bibitem{lawson2016future}
G.~Lawson, D.~Salanitri, and B.~Waterfield,
``Future directions for the development of virtual reality within an automotive manufacturer,''
\emph{Applied Ergonomics},
vol.~53, pp.~323--330, 2016.
\bibitem{nguyen2021stress}
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,''
in \emph{IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction},
pp.~551--561, 2021.
\bibitem{murtinger2021cbrne}
M.~Murtinger, E.~Jaspaert, H.~Schrom-Feiertag, and S.~Egger-Lampl,
``CBRNe training in virtual environments: SWOT analysis \& practical guidelines,''
\emph{International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering},
vol.~11, no.~4, pp.~295--303, 2021.
\bibitem{grabowski2015virtual}
A.~Grabowski and J.~Jankowski,
``Virtual reality-based pilot training for underground coal miners,''
\emph{Safety Science},
vol.~72, pp.~310--314, 2015.
\bibitem{regal2022challenges}
G.~Regal, H.~Schrom-Feiertag, M.~Migliorini, M.~Guarneri, D.~Di~Giovanni, A.~D'Angelo, and M.~Murtinger,
``Challenges in virtual reality training for CRBN events,''
in \emph{International Conference on Extended Reality},
pp.~79--88, 2022.
\bibitem{uhl2022threat}
J.~C.~Uhl, M.~Murtinger, O.~Zechner, and M.~Tscheligi,
``Threat assessment in police VR training: Multi-sensory cues for situation awareness,''
in \emph{2022 IEEE International Conference on Metrology for Extended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering (MetroXRAINE)},
pp.~432--437, 2022.
\bibitem{alwashmi2024enhancing}
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,''
\emph{NeuroImage},
vol.~285, p.~120483, 2024.
\bibitem{marougkas2025adaptive}
A.~Marougkas, C.~Troussas, A.~Krouska, and C.~Sgouropoulou,
``An adaptive virtual reality game for programming education using fuzzy cognitive maps and pedagogical models,''
\emph{Smart Learning Environments},
vol.~12, no.~1, p.~62, 2025.
\bibitem{maddalon2024exploring}
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,''
\emph{Journal of Medical Internet Research},
vol.~26, p.~e57093, 2024.
\bibitem{regal2022marcus}
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,''
in \emph{Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology},
pp.~1--11, 2022.
\bibitem{nasri2025towards}
M.~Nasri,
``Towards intelligent VR training: A physiological adaptation framework for cognitive load and stress detection,''
in \emph{Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization},
pp.~419--423, 2025.
\bibitem{lindner2025knowledge}
M.~Lindner, T.~Leutritz, J.~Backhaus, S.~K{\"o}nig, and T.~M{\"u}hling,
``Knowledge gain and the impact of stress in a fully immersive virtual reality--based medical emergencies training with automated feedback: Randomized controlled trial,''
\emph{Journal of Medical Internet Research},
vol.~27, p.~e67412, 2025.
\bibitem{harrington2018development}
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,''
\emph{The American Journal of Surgery},
vol.~215, no.~1, pp.~42--47, 2018.
\bibitem{jaskiewicz2019applicability}
F.~Jaskiewicz, K.~Frydrysiak, K.~Starosta-G{\l}owinska, and D.~Timler,
``The applicability of virtual reality in cardiopulmonary resuscitation training--opinion of medical professionals and students,''
\emph{Emergency Medical Service. Ratownictwo Medyczne},
vol.~6, no.~1, pp.~32--36, 2019.
\bibitem{papagiannakis2020mages}
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,''
in \emph{ACM SIGGRAPH 2020 Immersive Pavilion},
pp.~1--2, 2020.
\bibitem{chheang2021collaborative}
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,''
\emph{Computers \& Graphics},
vol.~99, pp.~234--246, 2021.
\bibitem{al2021healthcare}
N.~N.~Al-Hiyari and S.~S.~Jusoh,
``Healthcare training application: 3D first aid virtual reality,''
in \emph{International Conference on Data Science, E-learning and Information Systems 2021},
pp.~107--116, 2021.
\bibitem{bucher2019vreanimate}
K.~Bucher, T.~Blome, S.~Rudolph, and S.~von~Mammen,
``VReanimate II: training first aid and reanimation in virtual reality,''
\emph{Journal of Computers in Education},
vol.~6, no.~1, pp.~53--78, 2019.
\bibitem{rettinger2021vr}
M.~Rettinger, N.~M{\"u}ller, C.~Holzmann-Littig, M.~Wijnen-Meijer, G.~Rigoll, and C.~Schmaderer,
``VR-based equipment training for health professionals,''
in \emph{Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems},
pp.~1--6, 2021.
\bibitem{makled2019pathogenius}
E.~Makled, A.~Yassien, P.~Elagroudy, M.~Magdy, S.~Abdennadher, and N.~Hamdi,
``PathoGenius VR: VR medical training,''
in \emph{Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays},
pp.~1--2, 2019.
\bibitem{izard2016virtual}
S.~Gonz{\'a}lez~Izard and J.~A.~Juanes~M{\'e}ndez,
``Virtual reality medical training system,''
in \emph{Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality},
pp.~479--485, 2016.
\bibitem{hamari2014does}
J.~Hamari, J.~Koivisto, and H.~Sarsa,
``Does gamification work?--a literature review of empirical studies on gamification,''
in \emph{2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences},
pp.~3025--3034, 2014.
\bibitem{deterding2011game}
S.~Deterding, D.~Dixon, R.~Khaled, and L.~Nacke,
``From game design elements to gamefulness: defining `gamification',''
in \emph{Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments},
pp.~9--15, 2011.
\bibitem{huotari2012defining}
K.~Huotari and J.~Hamari,
``Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective,''
in \emph{Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference},
pp.~17--22, 2012.
\bibitem{deterding2014eudaimonic}
S.~Deterding,
``Eudaimonic design, or: Six invitations to rethink gamification,''
2014.
\bibitem{ryan2006motivational}
R.~M.~Ryan, C.~S.~Rigby, and A.~Przybylski,
``The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach,''
\emph{Motivation and Emotion},
vol.~30, no.~4, pp.~344--360, 2006.
\bibitem{mekler2013points}
E.~D.~Mekler, F.~Br{\"u}hlmann, K.~Opwis, and A.~N.~Tuch,
``Do points, levels and leaderboards harm intrinsic motivation? An empirical analysis of common gamification elements,''
in \emph{Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications},
pp.~66--73, 2013.
\bibitem{landers2017gamification}
R.~N.~Landers, K.~N.~Bauer, and R.~C.~Callan,
``Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: A goal setting experiment,''
\emph{Computers in Human Behavior},
vol.~71, pp.~508--515, 2017.
\bibitem{hamari2017badges}
J.~Hamari,
``Do badges increase user activity? A field experiment on the effects of gamification,''
\emph{Computers in Human Behavior},
vol.~71, pp.~469--478, 2017.
\bibitem{cruz2017need}
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,''
\emph{Computers in Human Behavior},
vol.~71, pp.~516--524, 2017.
\bibitem{fang2021hci}
X.~Fang,
\emph{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.
\bibitem{johnson2016gamification}
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,''
\emph{Internet Interventions},
vol.~6, pp.~89--106, 2016.
\bibitem{zichermann2020gamification}
G.~Zichermann,
``Gamification at work: Designing engaging business software,''
\emph{The Interaction Design Foundation}, 2020.
\bibitem{thibault2021seven}
M.~Thibault and J.~Hamari,
``Seven points to reappropriate gamification,''
in \emph{Transforming Society and Organizations Through Gamification: From the Sustainable Development Goals to Inclusive Workplaces},
pp.~11--28, Springer, 2021.
\bibitem{hicks2019juicy}
K.~Hicks, K.~Gerling, P.~Dickinson, and V.~Vanden~Abeele,
``Juicy game design: Understanding the impact of visual embellishments on player experience,''
in \emph{Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play},
pp.~185--197, 2019.
\bibitem{gabler2005prototype}
K.~Gabler, K.~Gray, M.~Kucic, and S.~Shodhan,
``How to prototype a game in under 7 days,''
\emph{Gamasutra}, Oct., vol.~26, 2005.
\bibitem{karimov2024gamification}
A.~Karimov, M.~Saarela, and S.~Ouazizi,
``Gamification and motivation in education: A systematic literature review,''
in \emph{eLearn: World Conference on EdTech},
pp.~616--624, 2024.
\bibitem{li2024gamification}
L.~Liuyufeng, K.~F.~Hew, and J.~Du,
``Gamification enhances student intrinsic motivation, perceptions of autonomy and relatedness, but minimal impact on competency: a meta-analysis and systematic review,''
\emph{Educational Technology Research and Development},
vol.~72, no.~2, pp.~765--796, 2024.
\bibitem{putra2025gamification}
I.~G.~N.~D.~Putra and I.~W.~Redhana,
``Gamification effects on learning outcomes: A meta-analysis,''
in \emph{AIP Conference Proceedings},
vol.~3206, no.~1, p.~080015, 2025.
\bibitem{diaz2024meta}
A.~F.~Diaz and H.~Estoque-Lo{\~n}ez,
``A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of gamification on student learning achievement,''
\emph{International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology},
vol.~12, no.~5, pp.~1236--1253, 2024.
\bibitem{lampropoulos2024impact}
G.~Lampropoulos and A.~Sidiropoulos,
``Impact of gamification on students' learning outcomes and academic performance: A longitudinal study comparing online, traditional, and gamified learning,''
\emph{Education Sciences},
vol.~14, no.~4, p.~367, 2024.
\bibitem{furkan2025meta}
M.~Furkan~Kurnaz and N.~Ko{\c{c}}t{\"u}rk,
``A meta-analysis of gamification's impact on student motivation in K-12 education,''
\emph{Psychology in the Schools},
vol.~62, no.~12, pp.~4997--5009, 2025.
\bibitem{doesburg2025landing}
D.~Doesburg, M.~Gemici, and A.~U.~Batmaz,
``Landing windows method as soft visual constraints for mid-air interactions,''
in \emph{Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction},
pp.~1--12, 2025.
\bibitem{pimentel2024gamification}
M.~Pimentel-Ponce, R.~P.~Romero-Galisteo, R.~Palomo-Carri{\'o}n, E.~Pinero-Pinto, J.~A.~Merch{\'a}n-Baeza, M.~Ruiz-Mu{\~n}oz, J.~Oliver-Pece, and M.~Gonz{\'a}lez-S{\'a}nchez,
``Gamification and neurological motor rehabilitation in children and adolescents: a systematic review,''
\emph{Neurolog{\'\i}a (English Edition)},
vol.~39, no.~1, pp.~63--83, 2024.
\bibitem{merino2025enhancing}
C.~Merino-Campos,
``Enhancing physical education through gamification and ergonomics: A literature review,''
\emph{Theoretical and Applied Ergonomics},
vol.~1, no.~1, p.~3, 2025.
\bibitem{sailer2017gamification}
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,''
\emph{Computers in Human Behavior},
vol.~69, pp.~371--380, 2017.
\bibitem{krath2021revealing}
J.~Krath, L.~Sch{\"u}rmann, 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,''
\emph{Computers in Human Behavior},
vol.~125, p.~106963, 2021.
\bibitem{li2024gamification}
L.~Liuyufeng, K.~F.~Hew, and J.~Du,
``Gamification enhances student intrinsic motivation, perceptions of autonomy and relatedness, but minimal impact on competency: a meta-analysis and systematic review,''
\emph{Educational Technology Research and Development},
vol.~72, no.~2, pp.~765--796, 2024.
\bibitem{lewis2018system}
J.~R.~Lewis,
``The system usability scale: past, present, and future,''
\emph{International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction},
vol.~34, no.~7, pp.~577--590, 2018.
\bibitem{vanden2020development}
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,''
\emph{International Journal of Human-Computer Studies},
vol.~135, p.~102370, 2020.
\bibitem{hart1988development}
S.~G.~Hart and L.~E.~Staveland,
``Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,''
in \emph{Advances in Psychology},
vol.~52, pp.~139--183, 1988.
\bibitem{faul2007g}
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,''
\emph{Behavior Research Methods},
vol.~39, no.~2, pp.~175--191, 2007.
\bibitem{seymour2002virtual}
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,''
\emph{Annals of Surgery},
vol.~236, no.~4, pp.~458--464, 2002.
\bibitem{mcgaghie2010critical}
W.~C.~McGaghie, S.~B.~Issenberg, E.~R.~Petrusa, and R.~J.~Scalese,
``A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003--2009,''
\emph{Medical Education},
vol.~44, no.~1, pp.~50--63, 2010.
\bibitem{lateef2010simulation}
F.~Lateef,
``Simulation-based learning: Just like the real thing,''
\emph{Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock},
vol.~3, no.~4, pp.~348--352, 2010.
\bibitem{alaker2016virtual}
M.~Alaker, G.~R.~Wynn, and T.~Arulampalam,
``Virtual reality training in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review \& meta-analysis,''
\emph{International Journal of Surgery},
vol.~29, pp.~85--94, 2016.
\bibitem{csikszentmihalyi1997flow}
M.~Csikszentmihalyi,
``Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention,''
\emph{HarperPerennial, New York},
vol.~39, pp.~1--16, 1997.
\bibitem{krath2021revealing}
J.~Krath, L.~Sch{\"u}rmann, 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,''
\emph{Computers in Human Behavior},
vol.~125, p.~106963, 2021.
\bibitem{nacke2017maturing}
L.~E.~Nacke and S.~Deterding,
``The maturing of gamification research,''
\emph{Computers in Human Behavior},
vol.~71, pp.~450--454, 2017.
\bibitem{sailer2017gamification}
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,''
\emph{Computers in Human Behavior},
vol.~69, pp.~371--380, 2017.
\bibitem{fields2014risk}
J.~M.~Fields, N.~E.~Piela, A.~K.~Au, and B.~S.~Ku,
``Risk factors associated with difficult venous access in adult ED patients,''
\emph{The American Journal of Emergency Medicine},
vol.~32, no.~10, pp.~1179--1182, 2014.
\bibitem{ji2025risk}
Y.~Ji, C.~Liu, X.~Cao, and L.~Zhao,
``A risk prediction model for adult patients with difficult intravenous access,''
\emph{The Journal of Vascular Access},
p.~11297298251314909, 2025.
\bibitem{fragkos2016reflective}
K.~C.~Fragkos,
``Reflective practice in healthcare education: an umbrella review,''
\emph{Education Sciences},
vol.~6, no.~3, p.~27, 2016.
\bibitem{ooi2021systematic}
S.~M.~Ooi, P.~Fisher, and S.~Coker,
``A systematic review of reflective practice questionnaires and scales for healthcare professionals: a narrative synthesis,''
\emph{Reflective Practice},
vol.~22, no.~1, pp.~1--15, 2021.
% \bibitem{b1} G. Eason, B. Noble, and I. N. Sneddon, ``On certain integrals of Lipschitz-Hankel type involving products of Bessel functions,'' Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, vol. A247, pp. 529--551, April 1955.
% \bibitem{b2} J. Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1892, pp.68--73.
% \bibitem{b3} I. S. Jacobs and C. P. Bean, ``Fine particles, thin films and exchange anisotropy,'' in Magnetism, vol. III, G. T. Rado and H. Suhl, Eds. New York: Academic, 1963, pp. 271--350.
% \bibitem{b4} K. Elissa, ``Title of paper if known,'' unpublished.
% \bibitem{b5} R. Nicole, ``Title of paper with only first word capitalized,'' J. Name Stand. Abbrev., in press.
% \bibitem{b6} Y. Yorozu, M. Hirano, K. Oka, and Y. Tagawa, ``Electron spectroscopy studies on magneto-optical media and plastic substrate interface,'' IEEE Transl. J. Magn. Japan, vol. 2, pp. 740--741, August 1987 [Digests 9th Annual Conf. Magnetics Japan, p. 301, 1982].
% \bibitem{b7} M. Young, The Technical Writer's Handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science, 1989.
% \bibitem{b8} D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, ``Auto-encoding variational Bayes,'' 2013, arXiv:1312.6114. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114
% \bibitem{b9} S. Liu, ``Wi-Fi Energy Detection Testbed (12MTC),'' 2023, gitHub repository. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/liustone99/Wi-Fi-Energy-Detection-Testbed-12MTC
% \bibitem{b10} ``Treatment episode data set: discharges (TEDS-D): concatenated, 2006 to 2009.'' U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, August, 2013, DOI:10.3886/ICPSR30122.v2
% \bibitem{b11} K. Eves and J. Valasek, ``Adaptive control for singularly perturbed systems examples,'' Code Ocean, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://codeocean.com/capsule/4989235/tree
\end{thebibliography}
% \vspace{12pt}
% \color{red}
% IEEE conference templates contain guidance text for composing and formatting conference papers. Please ensure that all template text is removed from your conference paper prior to submission to the conference. Failure to remove the template text from your paper may result in your paper not being published.
\end{document}