Optimizing conditions for computer-assisted anatomical learning

Abstract

An experiment evaluated the impact of two typical features of virtual learning environments on anatomical learning for users of differing visuo-spatial ability. The two features studied are computer-implemented stereopsis (the spatial information that is based on differences in visual patterns projected in both eyes) and interactivity (the possibility to actively and continuously change one's view of computer-mediated objects). Participants of differing visuospatial ability learned about human abdominal organs via anatomical three-dimensional (3D) reconstructions using either a stereoptic study phase (involving stereopsis and interactivity) or using a biocular study phase that involved neither stereopsis nor interactivity. Subsequent tests assessed the acquired knowledge in tasks involving (a) identification of anatomical structures in anatomical 2D cross-sections (i.e. typical Computed Tomography pictures) in an identification task, and (b) localization of these cross-sections in a frontal view of the anatomy in a localization task. The results show that the stereoptic group performed significantly better on both tasks and that participants of low visuo-spatial ability benefited more from the stereoptic study phase than those of high visuo-spatial ability.

The role of stereopsis in virtual anatomical learning

“…Acquiring accurate mental representations of human anatomy is a sine-qua-non for the medical practitioner, the human body being the frame of reference for all other medical knowledge and skills. In earlier research, we reported on the beneficial effects of a combination of computerimplemented stereopsis and dynamic exploration on virtual anatomical learning, especially for participants of low visuo-spatial ability (Luursema et al, 2006). The experiment reported here continues this line of research by taking a closer look at the effects of computer-implemented stereopsis on anatomical learning, without dynamic exploration.…”

“…However, Luursema et al (2006) recently showed that a virtual anatomical study phase that combines stereopsis and dynamic exploration, led to better learning than a study phase that involved only exploration of standard anatomical views (top, side, and front). Whether this can be ascribed to stereopsis, dynamic exploration, or its combination is as yet unclear.…”

Explorable three‐dimensional digital model of the female pelvis, pelvic contents, and perineum for anatomical education

“…Several other anatomical models have been created for anatomical education, including the bones of the wrist (Garg et al, 1999), the inner ear (Nicholson et al, 2006), the skull base and cranial nerves (Kakizawa et al, 2007), the abdomen (Luursema et al, 2006), the shoulder (Hariri et al, 2004), and the male pelvis (Brooks et al, 1998;Venuti et al, 2004). The effectiveness of these computer generated models as a viable and effective teaching tool is still under great debate.…”

“…The effectiveness of these computer generated models as a viable and effective teaching tool is still under great debate. Some reports suggest that interactive 3D models are a benefi- cial aid to student's comprehension of specific anatomical material (Luursema et al, 2006;Nicholson et al, 2006). Other studies suggest there is no advantage to 3D models, as they do not enhance student learning or performance on tests (Garg et al, 2002;Hariri et al, 2004), and may actually handicap those students with poor spatial ability (Garg et al, 1999).…”

Learning from graphically integrated 2D and 3D representations improves retention of neuroanatomy.

“…The results of these studies are mixed. Some studies report benefits of using computer-based programs over traditional material (Garg, Norman, & Sperotable, 2001;Luursema, Verwey, Kommers, & Annema, 2008;Luursema, Verwey, Kommers, Geelkerken, & Vos, 2006;Nicholson, Chalk, Funnell, & Daniel, 2006). Other studies report computer-based programs to be either as efficient as traditional teaching material (Codd & Chaudhury, 2011;Hariri, Rawn, Srivastava, Youngblood, & Ladd, 2004;Garg, Norman, Eva, Spero, & Sharan, 2002;Keedy, et aI., 2011), or inferior to traditional approaches (Garg, Norman, Spero, & Maheshwari, 1999;Levinson, Weaver, Garside, McGinn, & Norman, 2007).…”