## 2 Related Research
Hence, in this paper we define AR similarly to [PERSON] (2020) [25], that is, as a technology that allows the user to integrate virtual objects onto physical objects in the \"real world\" using cameras, tablets, or mobile phones. Furthermore, our work draws from [PERSON] (2014) [15] in order to define our mobile AR application as markerless AR, which \"uses positional data to acquire the user's location\" in order to \"augment the virtual content on a precise location on or within the real environment, regardless of whether or not that environment is static\". There are various studies that discuss the implementation of AR in anatomy learning using mobile devices. For instance, [PERSON] et al. (2016) [12], who aimed to discover the effects of MagicBook AR, a mobile AR application, on academic performance and cognitive overload of medical students, found that their experimental group (who used mAR) recorded higher achievements and a lower cognitive load. These results can be attributed to MagicBook facilitating abstract information becoming concrete, instant access to content anywhere, students exerting less cognitive effort, and learner satisfaction recorded by the experimental group. Then there are also studies that created and developed their own mobile AR learning systems in order to test user satisfaction, among other reasons. In 2015, [PERSON] et al. [13] developed a mobile prototype called Human anatomy in Mobile Augmented Reality (HuMAR) within a Waterfall Model in order to assist students and potentially strengthen their learning process of the human skeletal structure. They tested the user experience from both a didactic and technical perspective, and demonstrated that students were satisfied with HuMAR, which could potentially have a positive effect on their learning processes. However, as opposed to the waterfall model, our work used an Agile Scrum approach for development so that we can take advantage of the simultaneous and adaptive workflow scheme that is offered by this approach. [PERSON] et al. (2017) [4] determined if VR and AR were as effective as tablet-based (TB) applications for learning structural anatomy, and furthermore if they enhanced student learning, engagement, and performance. They recorded the student perceptions of the various learning modes used to study the human skull as well as any side effects. According to their findings, there was a negligible difference in average scores in VR, AR, and TB, suggesting that VR and AR are as valuable as tablet devices; however, VR participants had higher chances of experiencing adverse effects such as headaches, dizziness, or blurred vision. [PERSON] et al. (2018) [26], developed a mobile AR anatomy marker system to evaluate the usefulness thereof in anatomy learning. They used Floating Euphoria Framework in combination with the SQLite database to capture the marker, which is achieved by taking a picture that is divided into pieces so that the pattern matches the images stored in the database. The application has features that can display the entire body or parts of the human organs interactively. Highschool and medical students tested the application for learning human anatomy. The results revealed that the majority of students indicated that all of the evaluation requirements were met and that they were satisfied with the application to aid in anatomy learning. [PERSON] (2021) [27] developed a mobile AR application (AR in Anatomy) using the Waterfall approach in order to test its efficacy to promote learning of anatomy concepts and increase interest in the topic. The objectives were to allow students to explore 3D human body parts within the range of the body functions by rotating as well as zooming in and out. Furthermore, labels for small parts were provided. These objectives were successfully met. [PERSON] et al. (2022) [28] developed and tested an innovative prototype tool, Anatomical Education with Augmented Reality (AEducaAR), for education in human anatomy.