3D Interactive application vs. static illustration
Overview
My graduate research project is investigating the effectiveness between a 3D interactive application vs. conventional static illustrations in the context of a med-legal trial (i.e. medical malpractice or personal injury) and the comparative ability of these visual mediums to communicate complex information to a jury.
Initial page to visualize plaintiff’s anatomy before and after an injury or surgical corrections.
Example of viewing the model in 3D space for visual context.
Research problem
Currently, 3D interactive applications are not commonly used as demonstrative evidence for a variety of reasons: They are expensive to produce, it is unclear how effective they are compared to more conventional visual exhibits (i.e. static illustrations), and there is no clear legal adjudication concerning the general admissibility of 3D interactive applications as an accepted form of demonstrative evidence in the court room.
The ability to turn certain items on or off as well as change the opacity allows the user flexibility in viewing the content.
Exhibiting how a patient’s CT scan imaging data can be used to generate a 3D model of the plaintiff’s anatomy.
Research Significance
If a study can show that a 3D interactive medium is at least as useful as a comparable static-illustration (which is a visual medium widely accepted in litigation) for aiding jurors to understand the facts of the case, then a very important step has been taken towards showing its probative value. If the study concludes that the 3D interactive application is better than conventional static-illustrations in this context (a question which has not been studied in the literature), this will demonstrate its probative value even further.
The findings of this research project will provide insights into the effective use of different visual mediums during litigation, create a foundation of reasoning concerning the admissibility of 3D interactive applications as demonstrative evidence, and elevate the value of the medical-artist as the necessary expert qualified to create a new line of visual communication solutions in the courtroom.
Research results
After conducting a mock trial with research participants acting as jurors, it was shown that there was no statistically significant difference in juror comprehension between the 3D interactive application vs. the static illustrations.
Discussion
Considering the limitations of this study, future testing should be conducted to investigate the effectiveness in communicating the medical facts of a case to jurors between traditional static illustrations and a 3D interactive application. Both the expert witness and attorney believed the 3D interactive application was a better communication tool, and it is possible that the perceived superiority of this visual medium was not realized in this study since research participants were individuals who already possessed advanced medical and anatomical knowledge (all participants were graduate students in the BVIS program).
It may be that a group of participants who have less medical and anatomical knowledge may find that there is a statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of communicating medical facts between a 3D interactive application and static illustrations.