Results
REGRESSION
After the invitation, 69 of 256 medical students responded to the Google Forms, of which 64 were scheduled due to the limited time span. Of these, 6 students did not show up resulting in a study population of 58 participants. Another 5 students were excluded from analysis due to invalid research data or previous ultrasound experience as stated in the questionnaire. A total of 53 students were included in the analysis, of which 27 students were placed in the intervention group and 26 in the control group (see Fig. 
Study flow chartAccelerometer data were obtained from 48 students as technical issues compromised the use of these data from five participants.The mean age of participants was 21.4 years, with a predominance of female participants. There was no significant difference in gaming experience between the two groups (Table 
Baseline characteristicsThe intervention group completed the exam faster (247 s vs. 347 s, 
Probe movement scores by researchteamEffect size (Cohen’s d) Lifting probe d ≈ 0.925 (large effect size), Total time d ≈ 0.773 (large effect size). (Table 
Expert consensus score on different probe movementsThe expert scores on probe movements and general performance did not differ between the two groups.However, the intervention group made less movements, as measured by the accelerometer, than the other group (Table 
Movement of probe as measured with accelerometerEffect size (Cohen’s d) total amount of movement d ≈ 0.646 (medium to large effect size)To further investigate these findings, additional analysis was carried out for the whole group, in which an inverse association was found between movements and the expert score (see Fig. 
Linear regression analysis representing the relation between log total movements and total expert score