# An Immersive Virtual Reality Simulator for Echocardiography Examination
## 3 Results  
### Performance Evaluation Results of the Echocardiography Examination Simulator  
As mentioned in Section 2.5, the performance evaluation of the echocardiography VR simulator was conducted using two PCs with identical specifications. On one PC, the echocardiography process was performed by connecting both the haptic device and the HMD, while on the other PC, only the HMD was connected to perform concurrent access. Through this, when simultaneous users were present in the echocardiography VR simulator, data for each performance evaluation metric were measured based on the performance evaluation method. The average values for each performance evaluation \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Item**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Question**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Resolution} & Q (1) & Is the medical imaging displayed on the simulator clear? \\  & Q (2) & Compared to the images in the book, is the medical image displayed on the simulator clear? \\  & Q (3) & Is the medical image clear even during actual motion? \\  & Q (4) & Is the previous medical image well maintained when the phase changes? \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Accuracy} & Q (1) & Has this simulator implemented the human 3D model well? \\  & Q (2) & Do the viewpoint and the position of the hand match? \\  & Q (3) & Does the movement of the equipment match the performer’s movements? \\  & Q (4) & Does the movement of the equipment reflect subtle movements? \\  & Q (5) & Does it move to the next step only after the previous step has been clearly carried out? \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Usability} & Q (1) & Do you think this simulator has tactile realism? \\  & Q (2) & Do you think this simulator has visual realism? \\  & Q (3) & Do you think the operation of this simulator is user-friendly? \\  & Q (4) & Did the operation of this simulator work according to the performer’s will? \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Applicability} & Q (1) & Do you think this simulator is professional? \\  & Q (2) & Can this simulator be utilized for actual practice education? \\  & Q (3) & Can this simulator be used for patient explanation? \\  & Q (4) & Would you be willing to use a simulator produced based on this simulator? \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Educational usefulness} & Q (1) & Compared to the book, does this simulator help in understanding the actual skill? \\  & Q (2) & Can the stages of this simulator be applied to the actual echocardiography process? \\ \cline{1-1}  & Q (3) & After learning with this simulator, can you explain the skill to other medical personnel? \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Evaluation item for the echocardiography examination simulator. metric were calculated. Figure 20 represents the graphs for each performance metric, and Table 7 shows the average values for each performance metric. The results of measuring the FPS of the VR simulator indicate an average of 72.08, with a minimum of 70.78 and a maximum of 73.72. This suggests that the echocardiography VR simulator operates stably, providing a smooth environment for trainees. The CPU usage of the VR simulator was measured, yielding an average of 6.89%, a minimum of 2.00%, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Average** & **Item** & **Average** \\ \hline FPS & 72.08 (fps) & Memory usage & 447.83 (MB) \\ CPU usage & 6.89 (\%) & Haptic frame & 71.98 (fps) \\ GPU usage & 8.5 (\%) & Contact point accuracy & 0.39 (mm) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Average results of the performance evaluation items. Figure 20: Result graphs for each performance evaluation item: (**a**) FPS; (**b**) CPU usage; (**c**) GPU usage; (**d**) memory usage; (**e**) haptic FPS; (**f**) contact point accuracy. and a maximum of 14.0%. The low average CPU usage of less than 10% indicates that the simulator efficiently utilizes resources, minimizing the device's burden. The GPU usage of the VR simulator was measured, resulting in an average of 8.50%, a minimum of 4.40%, and a maximum of 13.2%.