The review arrives at a moment of explosive growth in surgical simulation. Orthopedic surgery, perhaps more than any other operative discipline, depends on psychomotor skills that are notoriously difficult to acquire through observation alone. Arthroscopic procedures, in which surgeons maneuver a camera and instruments through tiny incisions while watching a monitor, require hand-eye coordination that bears little resemblance to open surgery. Traditionally, trainees developed these skills on cadavers, which are expensive and anatomically variable, or gradually on live patients under supervision, an approach that raises obvious ethical and safety concerns. VR simulators promised a third path: unlimited, consequence-free practice on anatomically realistic virtual joints, complete with haptic feedback that lets the trainee feel the resistance of tissue and the click of a meniscal repair device.

Mohammdi and her coauthors conducted a structured scoping review, following the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines, to identify studies investigating VR-based orthopedic education. Rather than pooling data statistically, the team synthesized findings narratively and organized them along several axes: the type of procedure being taught, the simulation modality employed, the training level of the participants, and, crucially, the Kirkpatrick model of educational outcomes. That framework, developed in the late 1950s and still the gold standard for evaluating training programs, grades evidence in ascending tiers, from learner reaction at level one, through knowledge and skill acquisition at level two, behavioral change in real settings at level three, and finally measurable results for patients and institutions at level four. Where studies fall on this ladder tells you almost everything about the maturity of the field.

What the researchers found was a literature that has grown rapidly in recent years but remains heavily concentrated in one anatomical niche. Arthroscopy-based applications dominate the field, with knee and shoulder procedures accounting for the vast majority of published work. This concentration makes sense from a technical standpoint: arthroscopic simulators benefit from well-defined tasks, such as diagnostic knee arthroscopy or meniscal resection, that can be scored objectively using metrics like instrument path length, economy of movement, and time to completion. Platforms typically measure how smoothly a trainee navigates the virtual joint, whether they respect tissue boundaries, and how their performance improves across repeated sessions. Yet the concentration also reveals a blind spot. Fracture fixation, spine surgery, joint arthroplasty, and pediatric orthopedics remain comparatively underrepresented in the simulation literature, leaving large portions of orthopedic practice without equivalent virtual training infrastructure.

The technological picture that emerged from the review is one of pragmatic compromise. Most systems described in the literature were semi-immersive rather than fully immersive, meaning trainees manipulated physical instruments while viewing a computer-generated operative field on a screen, rather than wearing a head-mounted display that surrounds them entirely in a synthetic environment. Semi-immersive arthroscopic simulators have an advantage in that they preserve the physical ergonomics of real surgery, where the surgeon’s hands hold actual instruments while the eyes track a monitor. The participants in most studies were orthopedic residents, the trainees at the stage of training where simulation offers the greatest marginal benefit, since they possess foundational medical knowledge but lack the procedural fluency that only repetition can build.

On the question of effectiveness, the evidence clusters firmly at the lower rungs of the Kirkpatrick ladder. The overwhelming majority of studies assessed simulator-based skill acquisition, corresponding to Kirkpatrick level two, demonstrating that trainees who practice on VR platforms do indeed get better at the tasks those platforms present. Many of these studies also showed that performance gains followed recognizable learning curves, with novices improving rapidly over the first several sessions before plateauing, a pattern that allows educators to define proficiency benchmarks. Some research went further and established construct validity, the demonstration that a simulator can reliably distinguish between experienced surgeons and novices, a prerequisite for using such devices in high-stakes assessment. The reviewers note that immersive VR systems and higher-fidelity platforms showed promising results in skill acquisition and, in a limited number of cases, genuine skill transfer to the clinical environment.

That phrase, limited number of cases, sits at the heart of the review’s central critique. Studies assessing whether simulator-trained skills transfer to actual operating rooms, let alone whether they improve patient outcomes, were relatively few. This is not a trivial gap. Skills psychologists have long documented that expertise acquired in one context can fail to generalize to another, particularly when the simulated environment diverges from clinical reality in subtle ways: the tactile feedback of real tissue, the variability of patient anatomy, the cognitive load of managing a live surgical team, and the consequences of error. A trainee may achieve flawless scores on a virtual knee arthroscopy yet struggle when the camera fogs, the patient bleeds, or the anatomy deviates from the textbook. Without level-three and level-four evidence, the profession cannot say with confidence that hours in the simulator translate into safer, faster, or more successful operations.

Compounding the transfer problem is what the reviewers describe as substantial heterogeneity across the field. Technologies vary widely in fidelity, from basic desktop arthroscopy trainers to sophisticated haptic platforms costing tens of thousands of dollars. Validation methods differ from study to study, outcome measures are inconsistent, and there is no standardized framework that would allow educators to compare one simulator against another or to certify proficiency in a way that carries across institutions. This fragmentation has practical consequences. A hospital investing in simulation technology currently has limited rigorous evidence to guide purchasing decisions, and a residency program designing a VR curriculum must essentially build its own validation study before trusting the results. The authors argue that future research should prioritize standardized validation frameworks, pursuit of higher-level educational outcomes, and deliberate integration of simulation into real surgical practice, rather than accumulating yet more demonstrations that trainees improve on the devices they practice on.

The trajectory of the field nonetheless points toward broader adoption. Declining hardware costs, improvements in graphics rendering and haptic engineering, and the integration of artificial intelligence for automated performance assessment are converging to make VR training more accessible and more informative than ever. The review’s authors also acknowledge the role of modern tools in their own workflow, noting that they used large language models solely for language refinement and readability enhancement, with all content critically appraised and edited by the authors themselves. As simulation programs mature, the realistic near-term vision is a blended curriculum in which residents reach demonstrable proficiency on virtual platforms before ever touching a real joint, with simulators serving as gatekeepers rather than mere supplements. For that vision to be fully credible, however, the field must produce the studies it has so far avoided: longitudinal trials tracking simulator-trained surgeons into their clinical practices, with outcomes measured not in simulator scores but in operative times, complication rates, and patient recovery.

The scoping review thus functions as both a progress report and a challenge. It confirms that virtual reality has earned a legitimate place in early-stage orthopedic training, particularly for arthroscopic skills in the knee and shoulder, where the evidence of educational benefit is now robust enough to inform curriculum design. At the same time, it exposes a profession that has validated its teaching tools without yet proving their ultimate purpose. Surgery is ultimately measured in outcomes for living patients, not scores on a screen, and the next generation of research must cross that bridge. Until it does, virtual reality in orthopedic education remains a powerful rehearsal space, enormously valuable for building competence, but still awaiting its final examination on the stage that matters most.

Subject of Research: Virtual reality simulation for orthopedic surgical education and training

Article Title: Educational applications of virtual reality in orthopedic surgery: a scoping review of effectiveness and future directions

Article References: Mohammdi, S., Abbasnejad-Ardehroudkenari, M., Langari, A. A., Jafari, M., Ghodous, S., Amouzadeh-Lichahi, M., & Haghi, B. P. (2026). Educational applications of virtual reality in orthopedic surgery: a scoping review of effectiveness and future directions. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10385-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10385-6

Keywords: virtual reality, orthopedic surgery, medical education, surgical simulation, arthroscopy, scoping review, Kirkpatrick model, skill transfer, haptic feedback, residency training, validation frameworks, Educational

The research team systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for empirical studies published between January 2010 and May 2026, ultimately identifying forty-four studies that met their inclusion criteria. Following the Whittemore and Knafl integrative review framework and adhering to PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines, the authors critically appraised each study and synthesized the findings through thematic analysis. What emerged was a picture of a field that has mastered the art of the simulation laboratory but has largely neglected the harder question: what happens after the debriefing ends and the trainees return to the trauma bay?

Non-technical skills—the cognitive and interpersonal competencies that include situation awareness, decision-making, communication, leadership, and teamwork—have long been recognized as critical to safe trauma resuscitation. Unlike technical procedures, which can be rehearsed step by step, these skills involve dynamic perception, prioritization under uncertainty, and coordinated action across multiple professionals. The review draws on foundational work in human factors, including Endsley’s model of situation awareness and the SEIPS framework for understanding how work systems shape performance, to argue that these skills cannot be understood in isolation from the environment in which they must be deployed.

The evidence for immediate benefit is robust. Simulation-based training consistently improves teamwork behaviors, strengthens leadership performance, and boosts participant confidence across a range of trauma settings. One particularly compelling finding involves leadership: a randomized controlled trial demonstrated that simulation-based team leadership training improved leadership behaviors during actual trauma resuscitations, not just in the laboratory. Other studies have shown that multidisciplinary simulation training can decrease the time to critical operations for trauma patients and improve early trauma care delivery. These are meaningful, measurable gains.

But the review identifies a critical gap. When the authors looked for evidence that these improvements persist beyond six months, or that they translate into patient-centered outcomes such as reduced mortality or morbidity, the literature fell silent. This is not a small omission. The entire rationale for investing in simulation programs rests on the assumption that what is learned in the laboratory will be applied at the bedside. If that assumption is wrong—or only conditionally right—then institutions may be spending significant resources on training that produces a temporary spike in performance followed by a quiet return to baseline.

The authors propose that skill transfer is not a single event but a complex process mediated by three interacting domains. The first is individual: baseline clinical experience, demographic factors, and even stress responses during simulation all shape how much a trainee absorbs and retains. Research on stress and resident non-technical skills during trauma simulations has shown that physiological and psychological stress can significantly affect performance, meaning that two trainees in the same scenario may walk away with very different learning outcomes. The second domain is pedagogical: the structure of debriefing, the use of behavioral markers, and the alignment between training content and clinical reality all influence whether skills stick. The review highlights that NTS-focused debriefing produces significantly greater improvements than debriefing that addresses only technical performance, underscoring that how feedback is delivered matters as much as what is being taught.

The third domain is organizational readiness, and it may be the most neglected. A trauma team that learns excellent communication techniques in a simulation center will struggle to apply them if the actual trauma bay lacks clear role designation, if handover protocols are inconsistent, or if the institution does not support the behaviors that were taught. The review draws on implementation science frameworks to argue that without systemic alignment—appropriate staffing, equipment, protocols, and leadership support—simulation gains will dissipate. This is where the authors introduce their most significant contribution: the Simulation-to-Performance Transfer Framework, or SPTF, a conceptual model that maps how individual, pedagogical, and organizational variables interact to determine whether simulation training produces lasting clinical change.

The SPTF is not merely an academic exercise. It provides a structured approach that educators and institutional leaders can use to audit their own simulation programs. Rather than asking whether a training session was well-received, the framework prompts a different set of questions: Are trainees given opportunities to practice skills in the actual clinical environment after simulation? Is there a mechanism for reinforcing behaviors over time? Does the organization’s culture support the non-technical skills being taught, or does it implicitly reward speed over communication? These questions shift the focus from the simulation event itself to the entire pathway between training and performance.

The review also highlights promising directions for future research. The authors note that tools such as the T-NOTECHS scale for assessing trauma team non-technical skills and trauma video review methodologies are making it possible to measure team performance in real clinical settings, not just in simulations. Studies using video review have begun to link team assessment and decision-making behaviors to actual patient outcomes, providing a bridge between the simulation laboratory and the trauma bay that has long been missing. Additionally, research comparing virtual and in-person simulation formats, and studies examining how demographic variables affect skill acquisition, are helping to refine who benefits most from different types of training.

What makes this review particularly timely is the growing global burden of traumatic injury and the increasing recognition that healthcare systems cannot rely on individual heroics to manage complex, time-critical emergencies. The authors’ central message is both sobering and actionable: simulation training is necessary but not sufficient. Without deliberate attention to how skills transfer from the controlled environment of the simulation center to the chaotic reality of the trauma bay, even the most sophisticated training programs will produce teams that perform beautifully in the laboratory and then quietly revert to old habits when it matters most. The SPTF offers a roadmap for closing that gap, and its publication marks an important step toward making trauma simulation education not just engaging and evidence-informed, but genuinely transformative for patient survival.

Subject of Research: Non-technical skill transfer from simulation-based training to clinical performance in trauma resuscitation teams

Article Title: Optimizing non-technical skill transfer in advanced trauma resuscitation: an integrative review and systems framework

Article References: Rekik, R., & Askri, H. (2026). Optimizing non-technical skill transfer in advanced trauma resuscitation: an integrative review and systems framework. Global Surgical Education – Journal of the Association for Surgical Education, 5(1), Article 199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-026-00608-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44186-026-00608-1

Keywords: trauma resuscitation, non-technical skills, simulation-based education, team training, skill transfer, debriefing, patient safety, leadership, situation awareness, implementation science, medical education, trauma teams

The review, led by Ee Hng Ian Lim, Aaleyah Adam, and Athanasios Hassoulas of Cardiff University School of Medicine, is the first to formally appraise skill retention and operative transfer as outcomes in their own right. Previous syntheses, including recent meta-analyses by El Ashry and colleagues, Xiong and colleagues, and Farooq and colleagues, had established with reasonable consistency that AR improves technical performance during training. None of them, however, measured whether that performance persists without continued practice, or whether it carries over into live surgery. The Cardiff team searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from January 2000 to March 2026, following PRISMA 2020 guidance and prospectively registering the protocol on PROSPERO. Of 304 records screened after de-duplication, 18 underwent full-text review and just nine studies, encompassing 324 participants, met the inclusion criteria.

The included studies spanned four specialties: five in laparoscopic or visceral surgery, two in urology, and one each in orthopaedics and neurosurgery. All were prospective comparative designs, seven of them randomised controlled trials, and all used validated assessment instruments such as OSATS, GOALS, and GEARS rather than subjective measures of confidence or satisfaction. Eligibility was deliberately strict: studies had to report skill retention beyond the immediate training session, or transfer to live intraoperative or high-fidelity ex-vivo performance. Purely virtual systems without a physical component were excluded, as were studies reporting only satisfaction outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, or MERSQI, and risk of bias in randomised trials with the Cochrane RoB2 tool, with particular attention to whether outcome assessors were blinded.

On retention, the picture is encouraging but bounded. Four studies assessed performance after a delay, with intervals ranging from one to eight weeks. The strongest evidence came from Shepard and colleagues, who found that checklist scores for ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy access remained significantly improved from baseline at eight weeks at both lower pole and upper pole sites, with only modest, non-significant decline from post-test to retention assessment. Brinkman and colleagues found that laparoscopic training gains on the LAP Mentor II simulator were maintained without significant decline at one week. Dodier and colleagues reported that aneurysm occlusion rates in an AR-guided neurosurgical simulator improved significantly at fourteen days, though between-group comparisons did not reach significance and baseline imbalances complicated interpretation. Notably, Sugand and colleagues used a one-week washout design rather than a true retention paradigm, so the reviewers caution it cannot be read as confirmatory retention evidence.

Transfer results split along a striking line. Five studies assessed transfer to high-fidelity ex-vivo models, and four of the five favoured AR on validated instruments. All three studies assessing transfer to porcine box-trainer cholecystectomy reported significant AR advantages: Felinska and colleagues found higher global and task-specific OSATS scores; Wild and colleagues reported higher GOALS and OSATS scores along with lower complication rates of 60 percent versus 86.7 percent; and Cizmic and colleagues, across a ten-session training programme, found the AR group superior on GOALS and OSATS scores, critical view of safety achievement, completion rates, and complication rates. Chowriappa and colleagues found significantly higher GEARS scores and lower NASA-TLX time pressure and effort in AR-trained urology residents performing robot-assisted urethrovesical anastomosis, with a crossover arm replicating the findings.

Then comes the outlier that defines the field’s largest evidence deficit. Huettl and colleagues conducted the only study of any AR platform assessing performance in a live operating theatre, using real-time AR annotation during laparoscopic surgery. The result: no significant difference between AR and control groups in GOALS total scores, critical view of safety achievement, or operative time. Intriguingly, the AR group received 59.4 percent fewer gestural and 36.1 percent fewer verbal corrections from trainers, yet were rated as receiving lower-quality assistance, suggesting AR changed the structure of the teaching interaction rather than the participants’ underlying technical performance. The reviewers note several possible explanations for the divergence: ex-vivo settings strip away the unpredictable anatomy, time pressure, and consequences of error that characterise real operations, and Huettl’s real-time annotation modality differs fundamentally from the pre-operative simulation training used in every ex-vivo study.

One consistent null finding deserves attention. Operative time showed no significant difference in any of the eight studies that measured it, regardless of specialty, platform, or comparator. The authors argue this is probably a ceiling effect rather than a true null: in novice populations, duration is driven more by hesitation and error recovery than by movement quality, so AR may sharpen precision without shortening procedures. This fits the Fitts-Posner model of motor learning, in which qualitative gains precede speed and automaticity. Chowriappa’s cognitive load data, showing significantly lower perceived time pressure and effort in AR-trained participants, is at least consistent with AR functioning as a cognitive scaffold that offloads spatial information from working memory.

The methodological caveats are substantial. All nine studies scored as high quality on MERSQI, ranging from 13.5 to 16.5 out of 18, yet no study achieved an overall low-risk judgement on RoB2: seven raised some concerns and two were rated high risk, driven predominantly by unblinded outcome assessment. In Felinska’s study, gaze data annotation was performed by an unblinded assessor; in Wild’s, the training tutor assessed outcomes in real time with the AR overlay still visible, precluding blinding altogether. Randomisation sequence generation was inadequately reported in eight of nine studies. No study reported effect sizes, meaning statistical significance cannot be read as educational or clinical meaningfulness, and no study measured patient-level outcomes, complication rates in patients, or safety data. The maximum follow-up across the entire evidence base was eight weeks, leaving consolidation beyond that window entirely uncharted.

The reviewers’ conclusions are deliberately circumscribed. AR simulation produces measurable technical benefits in controlled ex-vivo and simulator-based settings, predominantly in novice learners, which justifies cautious integration as a pre-operative or early-curriculum adjunct, most defensibly for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and robotic surgery where the evidence is most internally consistent. What is not supported matters just as much: nothing demonstrates benefit beyond an eight-week horizon, procedural efficiency gains, or AR as a substitute for conventional intraoperative supervision. The highest research priority is adequately powered, pre-registered, blinded intraoperative transfer trials reaching Kirkpatrick Levels 3 and 4, alongside retention studies beyond three months, enrolment of senior trainees, mandatory effect size reporting, and standardised platform characterisation. Until then, the authors argue, AR should be treated as complementary rather than standalone, a genuinely promising but evidentially immature technology that must meet the same methodological bar as any other training intervention before system-level adoption.

Subject of Research: Augmented reality simulation for surgical skill retention and transfer to operative performance

Article Title: Augmented reality simulation for surgical skill retention and operative transfer: a systematic review

Article References: Lim, E. H. I., Adam, A., & Hassoulas, A. (2026). Augmented reality simulation for surgical skill retention and operative transfer: a systematic review. Global Surgical Education – Journal of the Association for Surgical Education, 5(1), Article 182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44186-026-00585-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44186-026-00585-5

Keywords: augmented reality, surgical education, simulation training, skill retention, skill transfer, systematic review, laparoscopic surgery, surgical training, operating room, clinical competence, medical education, randomised controlled trials

The scientific foundation for this work rests on well-established theories of expertise. The information-reduction hypothesis holds that experts become efficient by discarding irrelevant visual information and concentrating on the crucial elements of a task. The theory of long-term working memory suggests that mastery extends processing capacity by building retrieval structures that let experts access vast stores of knowledge quickly. Meanwhile, the holistic model of image perception, developed from mammography research, proposes that experts gather information from broad and peripheral areas of the visual field, effectively widening their useful field of view. Decades of eye-tracking studies have backed these ideas: as professionals gain experience, they visit objects less frequently, spend less time viewing them, avoid distractors more reliably, and show evidence of an expanding visual span.

What makes the new review distinctive is its focus on turning those expert differences into training tools. The authors systematically searched the Scopus database following PRISMA guidelines, screening 79 initially identified articles down to a final sample of eight studies that either examined expertise-dependent differences in eye movements or tested the transfer of skills through gaze patterns. Their conceptual framework divided the field into three elements: the skill-transfer methods and cognitive phenomena involved, the macro application areas where eye movements serve as training tools, and the eye-tracking metrics used to measure both expertise and learning. The framework captures how techniques such as eye movement modeling examples, or EMMEs, record an expert’s gaze as the expert performs a task, then present the playback to learners alongside the expert’s verbal narration.

EMMEs are theoretically rooted in observational learning and in the cognitive theory of multimedia learning, and they draw on a striking discovery in cognitive neuroscience: the brain’s mirror system activates when a person watches another perform an action, simulating that action internally. Research on expert dancers has shown that this mirroring process can help integrate observed actions into the observer’s own behavioral repertoire. In practical studies, the technique has delivered real gains. Novice aircraft inspectors trained with expert gaze displays detected more faults during search tasks, and EMME-trained inspectors of circuit boards showed improved fault detection. Even programmers using expert gaze cues debugged software more quickly, suggesting the approach extends well beyond medicine and industry.

Medicine, and especially surgery, has become the proving ground for gaze-based training. In a randomized controlled trial, novice surgeons trained to follow expert-like gaze strategies on a laparoscopic simulator developed more target-locking fixations, completed tasks faster, and made fewer errors than peers who learned by discovery alone. The advantage became even more pronounced when participants had to multitask, hinting that trained gaze frees cognitive resources for other demands. Related work on quiet eye training, a technique that extends the final fixation before a critical movement, showed that trainees who practiced knot-tying with gaze training maintained their performance under heightened anxiety while traditionally trained peers faltered. Collaborative systems that displayed a supervisor’s live gaze to trainees reduced completion times and errors, and studies of visual guidance during laparoscopic tasks found better trainee performance when experts’ point of gaze was made visible.

The applications reach far beyond the operating room. In a maritime operation simulator, researchers built expert-derived attention maps that told trainees exactly where to focus during heavy lifting operations; the briefed group showed superior visual focus compared with a control group told only about the risks. In construction, eye-tracking studies revealed that workers who scanned the workplace more broadly recognized a higher proportion of hazards, and that personalized feedback based on eye movement data improved both search patterns and hazard recognition. In aviation, researchers comparing helicopter pilots of different experience levels during landing simulation found that veterans relied more heavily on cockpit instruments while novices looked out the window, and that eye-tracking feedback improved the transfer of skills from simulator to real flight.

Not every finding supported the enthusiasm. Studies of EMMEs in school settings produced mixed results. One experiment found that students who watched a model’s gaze replay while reading illustrated texts integrated verbal and graphical information more effectively, and that weaker readers benefited most. But another pair of experiments on procedural problem-solving in geometry found no significant advantage from displaying a model’s eye movements, and in one case the modeled gaze actually slowed transfer problem-solving. The authors of the review conclude that the nature of the task is a critical moderator: gaze modeling appears most effective for non-procedural tasks such as classification and strategy learning, where the expert simply observes the material, and least effective for procedural tasks requiring direct interaction with on-screen objects, which already capture attention naturally.

The review also flags subtler moderators. Prior knowledge matters, consistent with the expertise reversal effect, which holds that extra instructional guidance can burden learners who already know enough to proceed without it. The presence of verbal explanations alongside gaze overlays can either enhance learning by revealing the expert’s covert cognitive processes or, for perceptually simple tasks, overload the learner with redundant information. Interestingly, one study of medical image diagnosis found that experienced experts benefited from gaze modeling even more than novices did, improving diagnostic performance, scanning efficiency, and their ability to adapt skills to unfamiliar visualizations. This suggests that eye movement modeling examples can promote adaptive expertise, helping even seasoned professionals confront the evolving technologies that constantly reshape their fields.

The authors are candid about the limits of their evidence. Only eight studies met the strict inclusion criteria, and sample sizes were small and methodologically heterogeneous, so the performance advantages of gaze training should be interpreted with caution and cannot yet be generalized. Eye trackers measure only foveal vision, missing the covert shifts of attention that let people process information in peripheral and parafoveal regions, and the cost of research-grade systems, ranging from thousands to tens of thousands of euros, remains a barrier to widespread adoption. The exclusive reliance on Scopus may also have omitted relevant studies indexed elsewhere. Still, the review’s core conclusion stands: experts are more focused, organized, and deliberate in their visual behavior than novices, gaze-trained individuals show measurable performance advantages in the tasks examined, and rendering the invisible perceptual strategies of expertise visible may be one of the most promising frontiers in professional training, with implications for medicine, aviation, industry, sport, and education alike.

Subject of Research: A systematic review of skills-transfer and gaze strategies studied through eye-tracking across professional domains

Article Title: Skills-Transfer and Gaze Strategies Studied by Eye-Tracking: A Systematic Review

Article References: Lupia, E., Bortolotti, A., & Palumbo, R. (2026). Skills-Transfer and Gaze Strategies Studied by Eye-Tracking: A Systematic Review. Trends in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-026-00535-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43076-026-00535-6

Keywords: eye-tracking, expertise, skill transfer, gaze training, quiet eye, eye movement modeling examples, visual attention, surgical training, human performance, systematic review, cognitive science, training methods