Machine GuidanceNCT06968260
Stress and Learning in Educator- vs. Software-Guided VR Training for Basic Life Support
A study testing Education Type in people with Machine Guidance and Instructor Guidance, run by Acibadem University.
Trial summary
This randomized controlled trial will explore how instructor type-human vs. machine-affects performance, immersion, and stress during VR-based Basic Life Support (BLS) training. Participants will receive VR based education wither with a machine instructor or a human instructor and complete a simulated emergency exam. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 25 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Machine Guidance, Instructor Guidance
- What is being tested?
- Education Type
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 66 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- May 2025to Jun 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 25 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Being older than 18
Who cannot join
- prior completion of Basic Life Support (BLS) training
- history of virtual reality (VR)-induced motion sickness
- medical conditions such as vertigo or the use of medications known to cause vertigo-like symptoms
About this study
Official title: Comparing Physiological Stress and Learning Outcomes in Instructor- vs. Software-Guided VR Basic Life Support Training
This randomized controlled trial will explore how instructor type-human vs. machine-affects performance, immersion, and stress during VR-based Basic Life Support (BLS) training. Participants will receive VR based education wither with a machine instructor or a human instructor and complete a simulated emergency exam. Outcomes will include procedural accuracy, physiological stress (measured via electrodermal activity), and subjective evaluations of presence and instructor effectiveness.
Read the detailed description
In high-stakes medical emergencies, both technical proficiency and psychological resilience are critical. Traditional Basic Life Support (BLS) training methods-such as lectures, role-play, and manikin-based practice-help students build core skills but often fall short in replicating the stress and complexity of real-world crises. As medical education evolves, virtual reality (VR) is emerging as a promising tool, offering immersive, controlled environments that simulate emergency conditions while supporting both skill acquisition and psychological engagement. However, while VR's benefits for technical training are well-established, its impact on stress management and mental preparedness remains underexplored.
This study will examine how the type of instructor-human or machine-within a VR-based training environment influences students' performance, immersion, and stress responses during BLS training. Participants will undergo VR-based BLS instruction led by either a human educator or a software-based guide, followed by a simulated emergency exam. Outcomes will be assessed through procedural accuracy, physiological stress measured via electrodermal activity (EDA), and subjective evaluations of presence and instructor effectiveness.
The findings are expected to shed light on how different instructional approaches in VR affect not only learning outcomes but also students' capacity to manage stress in high-pressure situations. By identifying how instructor type influences both competence and psychological resilience, this research aims to optimize VR-based medical training for the demands of real-world clinical practice.
- Conditions
- Machine Guidance, Instructor Guidance
- Being tested
- Education Type
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Education TypeOther
Machine Guidance group will receive education from a software, while the Instructor Guidance Group will receive education from a human instructor.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Machine Guidance | Experimental | The participants will receive a machine guided education Receives: Other: Education Type |
| Instructor Guidance | Experimental | Participants will receive human guided education Receives: Other: Education Type |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Electrodermal Activity
Electrodermal activity will be used to operationalize stress levels via Shimmer3 GSR+ (Galvanic Skin Response) Unit.
Measured: Up to 4 weeks
Presence Levels
Presence will be measured using Presence Questionnaire. The questionnaire is 7- point likert type, with higher scores meaning increased presence. The minimum possible score is 1 and the maximum is 7.
Measured: Up to 4 weeks
Instructional Skills Questionnaire
This questionnaire will be used to assess instructor evaluations. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate better satisfaction with the course.
Measured: Up to 4 weeks
Exam Scores
Scores on the exam module will be compared across groups. Scores will range from 1 to 100. Higher scores will indicate higher success.
Measured: Up to 4 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 May 2025
- Study startMay 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completionJun 2025 (estimated)
- Study completionJun 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Machine GuidanceStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 66 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Acibadem University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06968260
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2024-17/647
- Status last verified
- May 2025
- First submitted
- 28 Apr 2025
- Last updated
- 13 May 2025
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 May 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparing Physiological Stress and Learning Outcomes in Instructor- vs. Software-Guided VR Basic Life Support Training
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06968260
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2024-17/647
- Conditions
- Machine Guidance, Instructor Guidance
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 66 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Acibadem UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jun 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 May 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This randomized controlled trial will explore how instructor type-human vs. machine-affects performance, immersion, and stress during VR-based Basic Life Support (BLS) training. Participants will receive VR based education wither with a machine instructor or a human instructor and complete a simulated emergency exam. Outcomes will include procedural accuracy, physiological stress (measured via electrodermal activity), and subjective evaluations of presence and instructor effectiveness.
Detailed description
In high-stakes medical emergencies, both technical proficiency and psychological resilience are critical. Traditional Basic Life Support (BLS) training methods-such as lectures, role-play, and manikin-based practice-help students build core skills but often fall short in replicating the stress and complexity of real-world crises. As medical education evolves, virtual reality (VR) is emerging as a promising tool, offering immersive, controlled environments that simulate emergency conditions while supporting both skill acquisition and psychological engagement. However, while VR's benefits for technical training are well-established, its impact on stress management and mental preparedness remains underexplored.
This study will examine how the type of instructor-human or machine-within a VR-based training environment influences students' performance, immersion, and stress responses during BLS training. Participants will undergo VR-based BLS instruction led by either a human educator or a software-based guide, followed by a simulated emergency exam. Outcomes will be assessed through procedural accuracy, physiological stress measured via electrodermal activity (EDA), and subjective evaluations of presence and instructor effectiveness.
The findings are expected to shed light on how different instructional approaches in VR affect not only learning outcomes but also students' capacity to manage stress in high-pressure situations. By identifying how instructor type influences both competence and psychological resilience, this research aims to optimize VR-based medical training for the demands of real-world clinical practice.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Machine Guidance | Experimental | Other: Education TypeThe participants will receive a machine guided education |
| Instructor Guidance | Experimental | Other: Education TypeParticipants will receive human guided education |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 25 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Being older than 18
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- prior completion of Basic Life Support (BLS) training
- history of virtual reality (VR)-induced motion sickness
- medical conditions such as vertigo or the use of medications known to cause vertigo-like symptoms
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Education TypeMachine Guidance group will receive education from a software, while the Instructor Guidance Group will receive education from a human instructor. | Other | Instructor Guidance, Machine Guidance |
Primary outcome
Electrodermal Activity
Time frame: Up to 4 weeks
Electrodermal activity will be used to operationalize stress levels via Shimmer3 GSR+ (Galvanic Skin Response) Unit.
Presence Levels
Time frame: Up to 4 weeks
Presence will be measured using Presence Questionnaire. The questionnaire is 7- point likert type, with higher scores meaning increased presence. The minimum possible score is 1 and the maximum is 7.
Instructional Skills Questionnaire
Time frame: Up to 4 weeks
This questionnaire will be used to assess instructor evaluations. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate better satisfaction with the course.
Exam Scores
Time frame: Up to 4 weeks
Scores on the exam module will be compared across groups. Scores will range from 1 to 100. Higher scores will indicate higher success.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 May 2025.
Related trials for Machine Guidance
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Multimodal Physiologic State Intelligence Study
Heart Failure, Cardiomyopathies
Recruiting
Machine Learning-based Surgical Guidance System for Robot-assisted Rectal Surgery
Rectum Cancer
Recruiting
A Study Assessing Adult Patients Referred to an NHS Sleep Service With Suspected Obstructive Sleep Apnoea. This Study Aims to Compare the Sunrise Wearable Diagnostic Device Performance and Potential Inclusion in a NHS Diagnostic Pathway With Oximetry and WatchPAT Which Are Currently Used.
Obstructive Sleep Apnoea (OSA)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Education Type in people with Machine Guidance and Instructor Guidance, run by Acibadem University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 May 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Electrodermal Activity (time frame: Up to 4 weeks). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 May 2025.