4 ms·

The part about Cardboard just sounds like a PR stunt. From experience in surgery, for tricky stuff we would do 3D renders of blood vessels, etc and view them on

The part about Cardboard just sounds like a PR stunt. From experience in surgery, for tricky stuff we would do 3D renders of blood vessels, etc and view them on a computer. One time for a spine case, we actually did a 3D print of the involved vertebrae that we actually physically manipulated as we planned our operation. This was 5-10 years ago. Also given that the cost of an operation such as this in the multiple $100,000 range, the fact that they are resorting to Cardboard which actually is designed to be done cheaply and without too much consideration to fidelity of reproduction is very concerning. TLDR: This is a publicity stunt. Good options for viewing 3D studies have been around for at least a decade. The fact that they relied on a cheap, non-verified system for making life and death decisions is problematic.

andrewclunn 11y ago
If that's true, and they intentionally used sub standard technology for advertising purposes... then Google BETTER have paid for the surgery outright, and the parents have been unable to afford it otherwise. If not there are some SERIOUS ethical issues here.
tomlongson 11y ago
An "average user" is claiming to have beaten the world record in the racing game "Dirt Rally" by 12 seconds using the Oculus Rift. https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3z0n1l/the_oculus_rift_gives_a_huge_advantage_in_car/ https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3z0n1l/the_oculus_r... This story about Cardboard may be a PR stunt, but it may also be true that VR provided powerful insight that outperforms a flat screen or even a printed model. VR is going to be used a lot more in situations where understanding physical environments is important, be it Nanotech, Healthcare, Architecture... simply because it is so immersive.
- FF76 11y ago
  It's true that cardboard may have viable reasons for being mentioned in this context, but the onus is on the writer to prove that this isn't a sensational piece. As the article is right now, we can only speculate on good faith that they had good reasoning to use cardboard vs existing methods that others have mentioned.
  - tomlongson 11y ago
    Agreed.
- jbandela1 11y ago
  You are talking about the Oculus Rift which is a state of the art VR system that is expected to sell for more than $300. The article is talking about Cardboard which is a nice hack of a VR system that you can get for around $30. Look at some of the reviews for Cardboard http://www.tomshardware.com/news/google-cardboard-2-vr-jump,29207.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/google-cardboard-2-vr-jump,... http://www.howtogeek.com/221364/google-cardboard-virtual-reality-on-the-cheap-but-is-it-any-good/ http://www.howtogeek.com/221364/google-cardboard-virtual-rea... http://www.cnet.com/products/google-cardboard/2/ http://www.cnet.com/products/google-cardboard/2/ The reviews basically claim that it is a good introduction to VR, but the quality is not great, it is easy to get nauseated, and it is not good for extended viewing. These are not characteristics you want in a system that you use to make critical life and death decisions where millimeters matters. This is either a PR piece in which Cardboard did not play any significant role in treatment decisions, or if indeed Cardboard played a significant role in treatment decisions this is bordering on recklessness. Remember, this is not surgery in some remote area making do with whatever tools are available. No, this is taking place at a premier U.S. institution with state of the art facilities in a operation that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the institution used a snorkel pipe to intubate someone there would be an uproar. They are basically doing the equivalent with VR tech.

andrewclunn 11y ago

If that's true, and they intentionally used sub standard technology for advertising purposes... then Google BETTER have paid for the surgery outright, and the parents have been unable to afford it otherwise. If not there are some SERIOUS ethical issues here.

tomlongson 11y ago

An "average user" is claiming to have beaten the world record in the racing game "Dirt Rally" by 12 seconds using the Oculus Rift. https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3z0n1l/the_oculus_rift_gives_a_huge_advantage_in_car/ https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3z0n1l/the_oculus_r... This story about Cardboard may be a PR stunt, but it may also be true that VR provided powerful insight that outperforms a flat screen or even a printed model. VR is going to be used a lot more in situations where understanding physical environments is important, be it Nanotech, Healthcare, Architecture... simply because it is so immersive.

FF76 11y ago
It's true that cardboard may have viable reasons for being mentioned in this context, but the onus is on the writer to prove that this isn't a sensational piece. As the article is right now, we can only speculate on good faith that they had good reasoning to use cardboard vs existing methods that others have mentioned.
- tomlongson 11y ago
  Agreed.
jbandela1 11y ago
You are talking about the Oculus Rift which is a state of the art VR system that is expected to sell for more than $300. The article is talking about Cardboard which is a nice hack of a VR system that you can get for around $30. Look at some of the reviews for Cardboard http://www.tomshardware.com/news/google-cardboard-2-vr-jump,29207.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/google-cardboard-2-vr-jump,... http://www.howtogeek.com/221364/google-cardboard-virtual-reality-on-the-cheap-but-is-it-any-good/ http://www.howtogeek.com/221364/google-cardboard-virtual-rea... http://www.cnet.com/products/google-cardboard/2/ http://www.cnet.com/products/google-cardboard/2/ The reviews basically claim that it is a good introduction to VR, but the quality is not great, it is easy to get nauseated, and it is not good for extended viewing. These are not characteristics you want in a system that you use to make critical life and death decisions where millimeters matters. This is either a PR piece in which Cardboard did not play any significant role in treatment decisions, or if indeed Cardboard played a significant role in treatment decisions this is bordering on recklessness. Remember, this is not surgery in some remote area making do with whatever tools are available. No, this is taking place at a premier U.S. institution with state of the art facilities in a operation that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the institution used a snorkel pipe to intubate someone there would be an uproar. They are basically doing the equivalent with VR tech.