Coupled physical and digital cadaver dissection followed by a visual test protocol provides insights into the nature of anatomical knowledge and its evaluation

Abstract

This research effort compared and contrasted two conceptually different methods for the exploration of human anatomy in the first-year dissection laboratory by accomplished students: "physical" dissection using an embalmed cadaver and "digital" dissection using three-dimensional volume modeling of whole-body CT and MRI image sets acquired using the same cadaver. The goal was to understand the relative contributions each method makes toward student acquisition of intuitive sense of practical anatomical knowledge gained during "hands-on" structural exploration tasks. The main instruments for measuring anatomical knowledge under this conceptual model were questions generated using a classification system designed to assess both visual presentation manner and the corresponding response information required. Students were randomly divided into groups based on exploration method (physical or digital dissection) and then anatomical region. The physical dissectors proceeded with their direct methods, whereas the digital dissectors generated and manipulated indirect 3D digital models. After 6 weeks, corresponding student anatomical assignment teams compared their results using photography and animated digital visualizations. Finally, to see whether each method provided unique advantages, a visual test protocol of new visualizations based on the classification schema was administered. Results indicated that all students, regardless of gender, dissection method, and anatomical region dissected performed significantly better on questions presented as rotating models requiring spatial ordering or viewpoint determination responses in contrast to requests for specific lexical feature identifications. Additional results provided evidence of trends showing significant differences in gender and dissection method scores. These trends will be explored with further trials with larger populations.

Direct correlation of radiologic and cadaveric structures in a gross anatomy course

“…Others include problembased learning (Navsa et al 2004;Subramaniam et al 2004;Subramaniam 2006), ultrasound workshops using students and human models (Teichgraber et al 1996;Wittich et al 2002), and radiologic imaging of dissection laboratory cadavers (McNiesh et al 1983;Hisley et al 2008). Notably, no reported methods to our knowledge formally teach cadaveric and image structures simultaneously -in the same time and space -with an emphasis on relationships between the same structures of different representations.…”

Modelo pélvico sintético como uma ferramenta didática efetiva comparada à pelve cadavérica

“…A manipulação de cadáveres para produzir novos pontos de vista usualmente não é muito prática e, muitas vezes, é impossível 6 . Embora diversos autores declarem que a dissecação do assoalho pélvico e o entendimento de suas estruturas são difíceis 2,7 , não foram encontrados estudos similares que apresentassem outros recursos para incrementar este entendimento, como modelos físicos do assoalho pélvico feminino que 506…”

Perceptions among occupational and physical therapy students of a nontraditional methodology for teaching laboratory gross anatomy

“…Students echo the consensus among anatomy educators that hands-on learning in anatomy laboratories is central to professional training in the clinical sciences (Moxham and Plaisant, 2007). Other researchers have assessed the relative advantages of dissections versus prosections in medical school anatomy courses, typically concluding that cadaver dissections are a preferable way to teach future clinicians about the clinical relevance of anatomical facts and relationships (Hisley et al, 2008). Yet other studies have documented the value of innovation and reform in medical school anatomical education in the United States (Gregory et al, 2009;Hildebrandt, 2010;Sugand et al, 2010); the benefits of digital, and in some cases three-dimensional anatomy simulations to support undergraduate and postgraduate anatomy instruction (Hisley et al, 2008;Thakore and Mahon, 2008;Yip and Rajendran, 2008;Daruwalla et al, 2010), and the role of anatomy education in transmitting professional values to clinical students (Pawlina, 2006;Pearson and Hoagland, 2010).…”

“…Other researchers have assessed the relative advantages of dissections versus prosections in medical school anatomy courses, typically concluding that cadaver dissections are a preferable way to teach future clinicians about the clinical relevance of anatomical facts and relationships (Hisley et al, 2008). Yet other studies have documented the value of innovation and reform in medical school anatomical education in the United States (Gregory et al, 2009;Hildebrandt, 2010;Sugand et al, 2010); the benefits of digital, and in some cases three-dimensional anatomy simulations to support undergraduate and postgraduate anatomy instruction (Hisley et al, 2008;Thakore and Mahon, 2008;Yip and Rajendran, 2008;Daruwalla et al, 2010), and the role of anatomy education in transmitting professional values to clinical students (Pawlina, 2006;Pearson and Hoagland, 2010). Researchers also have investigated the benefits of exploratory learning to teach clinical reasoning and to prepare anatomy students for future clinical work (Philip et al, 2008), the benefits of developing writing skills regarding anatomical knowledge as a preparation for communicating effectively with patients (Evans, 2008), the learning benefits of verbal discussions and oral presentations by students in anatomy education (Lake, 2001;Philip et al, 2008), and the need to identify and consider different learning styles of clinical students (Lujan and DiCarlo, 2006).…”

“…3. Computer-assisted and web-based instruction that typically uses digitalized anatomical images to supplement traditional teaching and learning through cadaver dissections and prosections (Berube et al, 1999;Plack, 2000;Bukowski, 2002;Foreman et al, 2005;Hisley et al, 2008;Yip and Rajendran, 2008;Drake et al, 2009, Petersson et al, 2009). 4.…”