How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models

Abstract

The emergence of dynamic visualizations of three-dimensional (3D) models in anatomy curricula may be an adequate solution for spatial difficulties encountered with traditional static learning, as they provide direct visualization of change throughout the viewpoints. However, little research has explored the interplay between learning material presentation formats, spatial abilities, and anatomical tasks. First, to understand the cognitive challenges a novice learner would be faced with when first exposed to 3D anatomical content, a six-step cognitive task analysis was developed. Following this, an experimental study was conducted to explore how presentation formats (dynamic vs. static visualizations) support learning of functional anatomy, and affect subsequent anatomical tasks derived from the cognitive task analysis. A second aim was to investigate the interplay between spatial abilities (spatial visualization and spatial relation) and presentation formats when the functional anatomy of a 3D scapula and the associated shoulder flexion movement are learned. Findings showed no main effect of the presentation formats on performances, but revealed the predictive influence of spatial visualization and spatial relation abilities on performance. However, an interesting interaction between presentation formats and spatial relation ability for a specific anatomical task was found. This result highlighted the influence of presentation formats when spatial abilities are involved as well as the differentiated influence of spatial abilities on anatomical tasks.

Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based (Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education

“…Based on this principle, it can be presumed that learning in a virtual environment would be a type of contrived experience simulated in a virtual world where the user is actively performing tasks and essentially learning by doing. However, based on the results from previous studies (Azer & Azer, 2016;Berney, Betrancourt, Molinari, & Hoyek, 2015;Codd & Choudhury, 2011;Hu et al, 2009;Keedy et al, 2011;Kockro et al, 2015) there was no significant improvement in the results of students that studied anatomy in 3D environment in comparison to a 2D environment. The reason for these results could be either due to the lack of realism to simulate a contrived experience or due to a poor anatomical model.…”

Analysis of traditional versus three‐dimensional augmented curriculum on anatomical learning outcome measures

“…The level of spatial aptitude may also have played a significant role in student perception about the various technologies utilized. Students with lower spatial abilities find training with the 3D teaching tools more difficult than students with higher spatial abilities (reviewed by Mayer and Sims, ; Berney et al, ). Thus, within the student surveys students with lower spatial aptitude may be more likely to assign a lower rank to the digital 3D technology tools or make comments that they found the technology “difficult to use.” Students with higher spatial abilities are much more likely to enjoy the 3D technologies and rank them higher.…”

Does three‐dimensional anatomy improve student understanding?

“…Medical students often experience difficulties obtaining adequate spatial understanding of three‐dimensional (3D) anatomy from two‐dimensional (2D) images, such as those in anatomy books and on the internet (Battulga et al, ; Berney et al, ). This may be due to the fact that it is difficult for students in general to mentally rotate static, 2D illustrations (Beermann et al, ; Venail et al, ).…”