skip to main content
10.1145/3581641.3584100acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Embodied Agents for Obstetric Simulation Training

Published:27 March 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

.Post-partum hemorrhaging is a medical emergency that occurs during childbirth and, in extreme cases, can be life-threatening. It is the number one cause of maternal mortality worldwide. High-quality training of medical staff can contribute to early diagnosis and work towards preventing escalation towards more serious cases. Healthcare education uses manikin-based simulators to train obstetricians for various childbirth scenarios before training on real patients. However, these medical simulators lack certain key features portraying important symptoms and are incapable of communicating with the trainees. The authors present a digital embodiment agent that can improve the current state of the art by providing a specification of the requirements as well as an extensive design and development approach. This digital embodiment allows educators to respond and role-play as the patient in real time and can easily be integrated with existing training procedures. This research was performed in collaboration with medical experts, making a new contribution to medical training by bringing digital humans and the representation of affective interfaces to the field of healthcare.

References

  1. World Health Organisation. 2019. Maternal mortality. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortalityGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnabás Takács. 2006 . A portable ultrasound guidance and training system using high fidelity virtual human models. In International Conference on Medical Information Visualisation-BioMedical Visualisation (MedVis' 06) (pp. 77-81). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ashraf Ayoub, Yijun Xiao, Balvinder Khambay, Paul J. Siebert and Donald Hadley. 2007. Towards building a photo-realistic virtual human face for craniomaxillofacial diagnosis and treatment planning. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery, 36(5), 423-428.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Timothy Bickmore, T. W., Pfeifer, L. M., Byron, D., Forsythe, S., Henault, L. E., Jack, B. W., ... & Paasche-Orlow, M. K. 2010. Usability of conversational agents by patients with inadequate health literacy: evidence from two clinical trials. Journal of health communication, 15(S2), 197-210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Andrzej A. Kononowicz, Luke A. Woodham, Samuel Edelbring, Natalia Stathakarou, David Davies, Nakul Saxena, Loarainne T. Car, Jan Carlstedt-Duke, Josip Car and Nabil Zary. 2019. Virtual patient simulations in health professions education: systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(7), e14676.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Epic Games. 1998. MetaHuman Creator [Computer software]. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/metahumanGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Reallusion. 2000. Character Creator 4 [Computer software]. https://www.reallusion.com/character-creator/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nvidia. 1993. Audio2Face [Computer software/Deep learning AI technology]. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/omniverse/apps/audio2face/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. UneeQ Limited. 2022. I am Sophie – digital humans [Computer software/AI]. https://iamsophie.io/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Neonlife.AI. 2020. Artificial Humans - NEON [Computer software]. https://neonlife.ai/aboutusGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Erin Wilson, David G. Hewett, Brian C. Jolly, Sarah Janssens and Michael M. Beckmann. 2018. Is that realistic? The development of a realism assessment questionnaire and its application in appraising three simulators for a gynaecology procedure. Advances in Simulation, 3(1), 1-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Stanley J. Hamstra, Ryan Brydges, Rose Hatala, Benjamin Zendejas and David A. Cook. 2014. Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Academic medicine, 89(3), 387-392.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Organisation for Econonmic Co-operation and Development. 2020. OECD, SF2.3: Age of mothers at childbirth and age-specific fertility. UpToDate. Retrieved September 28, 2022, from https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF_2_3_Age_mothers_childbirth.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kai Haldre, Kaja Rahu, Helle Karro and Mati Rahu. 2007. Is a poor pregnancy outcome related to young maternal age? A study of teenagers in Estonia during the period of major socio-economic changes (from 1992 to 2002). European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 131(1), 45-51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Suvi Leppälahti, Mika Gissler, Maarit Mentula and Oskari Heikinheimo. 2013. Is teenage pregnancy an obstetric risk in a welfare society? A population-based study in Finland, from 2006 to 2011. BMJ open, 3(8), e003225Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Vivian E. Hamilton. 2016. Adulthood in law and culture. Tul. L. Rev., 91, 55Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Donna L. Hoyert. 2022 Maternal mortality rates in the United States.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Tedla Amanuel, Azmach Dache and Aregahegn Dona. 2021. Postpartum hemorrhage and its associated factors among women who gave birth at Yirgalem General Hospital, Sidama Regional State, Ethiopia. Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, 8, 23333928211062777.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Singh Jigyasa, Sakshi Agrawal, Uma Pandey, Shikha Sachan, Mamta Rajan, Tej Bali Singh and Surabhi Sapna. 2022. Implementation of Postpartum Hemorrhage Emergency Care Using a Bundle Approach at a Tertiary Care Hospital in North India. Cureus, 14(7)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mike Seymour, Lingyao Ivy Yuan, Alan Dennis and Kai Riemer. 2021. Have We Crossed the Uncanny Valley? Understanding Affinity, Trustworthiness, and Preference for Realistic Digital Humans in Immersive Environments. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(3), 9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Masahiro Mori, Karl F MacDorman and Norri Kageki. 2012. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robotics & automation magazine, 19(2), 98-100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Julija Vaitonytė, Pieter A. Blomsma, Maryam Alimardani and Max M. Louwerse. 2021. Realism of the face lies in skin and eyes: Evidence from virtual and human agents. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 3, 100065Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Andrew B. Raij, Kyle Johnsen, Robert F. Dickerson, Benjamin C. Lok, Marc S. Cohen, Margaret Duerson, Rebecca Rainer Pauly, Amy O. Stebens, Peggy Wagner and Scott Lind. 2007. Comparing interpersonal interactions with a virtual human to those with a real human. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 13(3), 443-457.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Barry Issenberg and Ross J. Scalese. 2007. Best evidence on high-fidelity simulation: what clinical teachers need to know. The Clinical Teacher, 4(2), 73-77Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Barry Issenberg, William C. Mcgaghie, Emil R. Petrusa, David Lee Gordon and Ross J. Scalese. 2005. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Medical teacher, 27(1), 10-28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Doug A. Bowman and Ryan P. McMahan. 2007. Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough?. Computer, 40(7), 36-43Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Lasser R. 2013. Engineering method. Tufts University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Carl-Herman Hjortsjö. 1970. Man's face and mimic language. (Translation: WF Salisbury). Studentlitteratur.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen. 1978. Facial action coding system. Environmental Psychology & Nonverbal Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1037/t27734-000Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Songul Aktas and Türkan Pasinlioğlu. 2021. The effect of empathy training given to midwives on the empathic communication skills of midwives and the birth satisfaction of mothers giving birth with the help of these midwives: A quasi‐experimental study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 27(4), 858-867.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Philippe Bertrand, Jérôme Guegan, Léonore Robieux, Cade Andrew McCall and Franck Zenasni. 2018. Learning empathy through virtual reality: multiple strategies for training empathy-related abilities using body ownership illusions in embodied virtual reality. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. John F, Kelley. 1984. An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 2(1), 26-41Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Microsoft Corporation. 2010. Microsoft Azure, cloud computing service [Computer software]. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive-services/speech-service/how-to-speech-synthesis-viseme?tabs=visemeid&pivOS=programming-language-csharpGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Caputring Reality. 2016. Reality Capture, photogrammetry softwareGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Autodesk. 1998 Autodesk Maya [3D computer graphics application]. https://www.autodesk.com/products/maya/overview?term=1-YEAR&tab=subscriptionGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Pixologic. 1999. Zbrush, digital sculpting tool [Computer software]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Russian3DScanner LLC. 2011. R3DS Wrap [Computer software]. https://www.russian3dscanner.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Epic Games. 1998. Unreal Engine 4 [Computer software]. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-USGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Pivotal Software. 2022. RabbitMQ, open-source message-broker [Computer software]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Apache Software Foundation. 1999. Apache Thrift [Computer software] https://thrift.apache.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. FacewareTechnologies. 2012. https://facewaretech.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Embodied Agents for Obstetric Simulation Training

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        IUI '23: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
        March 2023
        972 pages
        ISBN:9798400701061
        DOI:10.1145/3581641

        Copyright © 2023 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 March 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)103
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format