Validation of the GUESS-18 for the Usability of a Virtual Reality Racing Game

Virtual reality (VR) technology has been in development for many decades, with recent strides in the consumer market. Head-mounted displays (HMDs) provide an immersive VR experience by inserting users into an artificially constructed digital world. However, there is currently no standardized tool for measuring the usability of a VR system or environment. The GUESS-18 is a validated usability questionnaire designed for measuring the usability of video games with 9 factors present in video games. The objective of this study was to validate the GUESS-18 for measuring the usability of VR in a gaming environment. Participants played Assetto Corsa, a racing game, with an HMD in VR and with a traditional monitor. The best lap times were recorded as a performance measure. Errors were also recorded, which included driving off the track or colliding with a wall. Users answered the GUESS-18 and the System Usability Scale (SUS) after their experience. They also answered the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) before and after using VR. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to determine the validity of the GUESS-18’s measurements for usability of the racing game in VR. The GUESS-18 is an accurate and effective tool for measuring usability of the game in VR. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values indicate appropriate model fit, with values of 0.967 and 0.056, respectively. VR yielded significantly faster lap times by about 5%. No other differences were found for performance. Usability scores from the GUESS-18 were significantly higher in the VR condition than the traditional monitor by about 6.4%. SSQ scores were significantly higher after engaging with VR by 282.5%. No differences were found for SUS scores between display conditions. We also found that playing the game in VR resulted in greater immersion and personal gratification than playing with the monitor. Future research should focus on the development and validation of a generalized VR usability tool that captures the latent factors when using a VR system

Presence/absence of an endodontic specialty program during dental education compared to general dentist attitudes toward treating or referring patients requiring endodontic therapy.

The decision by a general dentist to treat or refer a patient needing endodontic therapy may be based on multiple variables. Students attending dental schools with endodontic specialty programs could be exposed to a referral system with endodontic residents managing difficult cases and they could have patients transferred to residents for completion of treatment if complications occur. Whereas, students at schools without endodontic programs may have to treat more difficult cases due to a more limited ability to refer cases. The primary aim of this study was to compare the opinion of general dentist graduates trained with and without endodontic programs as to whether they would be inclined to treat or refer to a specialist their patients requiring specific endodontic procedures. After IRB approval, a survey was electronically distributed to the members of the Kentucky Dental Association using the online survey tool Surveygizmo®. General dentists were asked their gender, dental school attended, year of graduation, history of any GPR/AEGD training, and presented a list of 18 specific endodontic procedures or possible complications. They were asked whether they (1) would likely treat the patient, (2) would likely refer the patient, or (3) were neutral. Presence/absence of an endodontic graduate program during the years of their dental education and the number of years of practice were calculated from the data provided. Odds ratio was used to assess statistical significance. Surveys were electronically distributed to 955 members of the Kentucky Dental Association. 230 dentists (24%) responded with 191 general dentists completing the survey. 137 respondents (71.7%) were male and 54 (28.3%) were female. 92 (48.2%) trained at a dental school without an endodontic program and 95 (49.7%) trained at a school with an endodontic program. Dentists trained at a school without an endodontic program were significantly more likely to treat rather than refer (1) teeth with calcified canals (23.9% vs 9.5%, P = .017), (2) teeth with significantly curved canals (28.3% vs 9.5%, P = .001), (3) periapical surgery on anterior teeth (16.3% vs 6.3%, P = .037), and (4) endodontic treatment on patients with traumatic injuries such as avulsion (52.2% vs 34.7%, P = .019). The results of this study indicate the presence or absence of an endodontic graduate program during a student\u27s dental education may influence subsequent decisions in private practice to either refer to a specialist or to treat patients requiring endodontic therapy

Intraurethral device for treating or detecting various diseases or infections of the urinary system

An intraurethral device for use in a female urinary tract is provided. The intraurethral device comprises a urethral element that contains a chemical compound capable of treating or detecting the presence or absence of a disorder or disease. In one embodiment, the intraurethral device also contains outer and inner insertion elements that are in operative communication with the urethral element to facilitate the insertion of the urethral element into the urethra without substantially contaminating the chemical compound prior to insertion