Background:
Anatomy is widely regarded as one of the most challenging subjects for medical students. Some aspects of anatomy learning may even trigger anxiety, sometimes described as a 'phobia'. A key question arises: how can anatomy education become more engaging, accessible, and effective than traditional methods? One solution involves emerging technologies like Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), which offer immersive learning experiences that can improve retention, boost confidence, and enhance understanding of complex structures. For instance, tools like the Oculus Quest have been shown to increase student motivation and retention.

Objective:
This review explores multimodal approaches to teaching anatomy in undergraduate medicine, focusing on their benefits, limitations, and feasibility. A central aim was to assess how VR and AR differ from traditional methods.

Methodology:
We conducted a systematic review using databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect, applying key search terms. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were used: papers older than 10 years, non-peer-reviewed, and review papers were excluded to ensure quality. From 109 initial records, 23 full-text articles were shortlisted. After screening, 4 studies were included, offering insights into how VR and AR are currently applied in medical education and where further development is needed.

Results:
We compared four studies, two using AR and two using VR, to evaluate their effectiveness in anatomy education. In one VR study, students in an Immersive Virtual Anatomy Lab improved test accuracy by 56% and completed tasks 19% faster than peers using traditional methods, demonstrating the benefits of spatial realism and interactivity. Another VR study showed no significant difference in knowledge retention between VR and desktop 3D, although VR improved immersion, suggesting immersion alone may not enhance learning without differentiated content.

AR-based studies also showed positive results. One found that screen-based AR and 3D tablet learning surpassed textbook methods in engagement, with higher satisfaction among male participants. Another study reported improved test scores and attention, likely due to AR’s interactive nature.
However, limitations such as short study durations, small sample sizes, and uncontrolled prior knowledge raise questions about whether AR/VR alone drove outcomes. Still, immersive technologies show strong potential when integrated effectively, enhancing engagement, spatial understanding, and safe practice.

Implications and Significance:
VR and AR offer clear benefits for anatomy education. For example, Kadri’s study found VR improved both qualitative and quantitative outcomes through enhanced 3D visualisation and engagement. These tools are especially valuable where cadaver-based teaching is restricted. However, scalability remains a challenge due to high costs and resource requirements, and AR’s current limitations warrant further investigation.

Conclusion:
Multimodal tools like AR and VR hold promise for supporting anatomy education, particularly where cadaver access is limited. Challenges include cost and accessibility. Future research should explore their role in supporting long-term retention and the integration of other technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, to further enhance learning outcomes.

Keywords: Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Medical Education, Anatomy.