I was recently asked to write the VR/AR section of a 3D printing review paper. As part of my section, I presented a literature review of the current research that’s been investigating the use of virtual and augmented reality to view medical models. One of the growing uses of these modern technologies is as an alternative to physically 3D printing models for surgical planning. The benefit that virtual or augmented reality might bring to this type of visualization is likely significantly affected by the form-factor and technical sophistication of the technology being used. To my dismay, many papers were using VR and AR as catch-all terms that covered anything from the Microsoft Hololens (AR) to a conventional desktop display being used to look at 3D renderings of models (VR?). It occured to me that in the medical field (and in general), we lack some clear and distinguishable language that teases apart what makes all of these technologies different from each other.

What is it, essentially, that makes an iPad running Apple’s ARKit different than the Magic Leap AR headset? How does the Oculus Go VR headset differ from the Valve Index? In this post, I’m going to present a number of ways to create understandable delineations between these products, ranging from historical concepts to some new frameworks that I’ve come up with.

Two types of distinction