Sophisticated 3D animation and video compositing software enables the creation of complex multimedia instructional movies. However, if the design of such presentations does not take account of cognitive load and multimedia theories, then their effectiveness as learning aids will be compromised. We have investigated the use of animated images versus still images by creating two versions of a 4 minute multimedia presentation on vascular neuroeffector transmission. One version comprised narration and animations whilst the other comprised narration and still images. 54 undergraduate students from level 3 pharmacology and physiology undergraduate degrees participated. Half watched the full animation and the other half watched the stills-only. Students watched the presentation once and then answered a short essay question. Answers were coded and marked blind. The 'animation' group scored 3.7 (SEM 0.4) (out of 11) whilst the 'stills' group scored 3.2 (SEM 0.5). The difference was not statistically significant. Further analysis of bonus marks, awarded for appropriate terminology use, detected a significant difference in one class (pharmacology) who scored 0.6 (SEM 0.2) vs 0.1 (SEM 0.1) for animation vs stills respectively, p=0.04. However, when combined with the physiology group the significance disappeared. The feedback from students was extremely positive and identified four main themes of interest. In conclusion, whilst increasing student satisfaction, we do not find strong evidence in favour of animated images over still images in this particular format. We discuss the study design and offer suggestions for further investigation of this type.Introduction.