3 ms·
If we're going to accept that stereoscopy makes an objectively positive difference over a "flat 3D" presentation, does it not follow that the threshold for succ
by Zikes 11y ago
If we're going to accept that stereoscopy makes an objectively positive difference over a "flat 3D" presentation, does it not follow that the threshold for success in this case potentially fell within that difference?
- eridius 11y agoI don't think it does. Remember, we're not talking about some kind of remote-operated robotic surgery rig, where the difference might actually affect the movements the surgeon uses during the surgery. This was just for looking at images in preparation for the surgery. Stereoscopic 3D can help get a feel for the depth quickly, but I don't think there's any fundamental difference between using that versus just spending a little more time working with a 3D model (moving a 3D model around gets you a feel for the depth too, just not as fast as stereoscopic imagery does). Besides, we've had 3D monitors for years now. If there was a significant difference here, doctors would all have switched to using 3D monitors years ago to do this kind of preparation. Or at least, we'd have heard stories come out before now about individual doctors that did make the switch because it allows them to confidently perform surgeries they couldn't before.