Table 3 Participant post-study evaluation. n (%), N = 40

MR anatomy was realistic

1(2.5)

2(5.0)

4(10)

33(82.5)

MR helped identify landmarks

3(7.5)

1(2.5)

1(2.5)

35(87.5)

Easier to learn internal anatomy

2(5.0)

0(0)

0(0)

38(95)

Easy to use

4(10)

1(2.5)

5(12.5)

30(75)

MR made training interesting

2(5.0)

3(7.5)

2(5.0)

33(82.5)

MR improved my confidence in LP skills

0(0)

0(0)

3(7.5)

37(92.5)

MR helped me to improve my LP skills

1(2.5)

3(7.5)

7(17.5)

29(72.5)

MR will be useful in my medical training

0(0)

2(5.0)

1(2.5)

37(92.5)

MR will promote learning

 Novel features and functionalities

1(2.5)

2(5.0)

4(10)

33(82.5)

 Interaction between stimulator and trainee

2(5.0)

1(2.5)

5(12.5)

32(80.0)

MR was a useful tool of medical training

0(0)

1(2.5)

2(5.0)

37(92.5)

Agreement to apply MR in medical training

2(5.0)

2(5.0)

3(7.5)

33(82.5)