Does spatial ability help the learning of anatomy in a biomedical science course?

Abstract

A three-dimensional appreciation of the human body is the cornerstone of clinical anatomy. Spatial ability has previously been found to be associated with students' ability to learn anatomy and their examination performance. The teaching of anatomy has been the subject of major change over the last two decades with the reduction in time spent on dissection and greater use of web-based and computer-based resources. In this study, we examine whether the relationship between spatial ability and performance in anatomy examinations is sustained in a contemporary curriculum. A comparison of students' performance in a series of tests of spatial ability to their anatomy examination scores in biomedical sciences course exhibited only weak association (r = 0.145 and P = 0.106). This has implications for the use of spatial ability as a predictor of success in introductory subjects in the teaching of anatomy.

Student and recent graduate perspectives on radiological imaging instruction during basic anatomy courses

“…There is also some suggestion in the cognitive psychology literature that spatial reasoning ability should be selected for in future physicians for specialties broadly, not just radiology (Hegarty et al, ). These findings in the medical literature are supported by generally positive associations found in anatomy literature as well (Rochford, ; Garg et al, ; Guillot et al, ; Lufler et al, ; Sweeney et al, ), and these concepts are supported by recent physiologic findings of brain perfusion changes during spatial tasks (Loftus et al, ).…”

Spatial abilities and anatomy knowledge assessment: A systematic review

“…However the I 2 of 92% indicated high heterogeneity of results between studies, and results should not be pooled. The study of Sweeney et al () was different from the studies of Nguyen et al () using only one spatial abilities test, namely the Mental Rotations Test. The study of Sweeney et al included a composite measure of five spatial abilities measures that could influence on each other and was therefore excluded (Sweeney et al, ).…”

“…The study of Sweeney et al () was different from the studies of Nguyen et al () using only one spatial abilities test, namely the Mental Rotations Test. The study of Sweeney et al included a composite measure of five spatial abilities measures that could influence on each other and was therefore excluded (Sweeney et al, ). The pooled correlation of the studies of Nguyen et al was 0.67 [95% CI (0.55; 0.77)] using a fixed effect model with an I 2 of 0% (Nguyen et al, ).…”

“…Keedy et al () Provo et al (2012) Nguyen et al () Tan et al () Plumley et al () Nguyen et al () Sweeney et al ()…”

“…However the I 2 of 92% indicated high heterogeneity of results between studies, and results should not be pooled. The study of Sweeney et al (2014) was different from the studies of (Nguyen et al, 2012(Nguyen et al, , 2014. Pooled correlation of the two studies that included a spatial abilities test and duration of anatomy knowledge assessment (Nguyen et al, 2012(Nguyen et al, , 2014 was 20.68 [95% CI (20.78; 20.56); n 5 2] using a fixed effect model with an I 2 of 0%.…”