These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The Effect of Stereoscopic Augmented Reality Visualization on Learning Anatomy and the Modifying Effect of Visual-Spatial Abilities: A Double-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Author: Bogomolova K, van der Ham IJM, Dankbaar MEW, van den Broek WW, Hovius SER, van der Hage JA, Hierck BP.
    Journal: Anat Sci Educ; 2020 Sep; 13(5):558-567. PubMed ID: 31887792.
    Abstract:
    Monoscopically projected three-dimensional (3D) visualization technology may have significant disadvantages for students with lower visual-spatial abilities despite its overall effectiveness in teaching anatomy. Previous research suggests that stereopsis may facilitate a better comprehension of anatomical knowledge. This study evaluated the educational effectiveness of stereoscopic augmented reality (AR) visualization and the modifying effect of visual-spatial abilities on learning. In a double-center randomized controlled trial, first- and second-year (bio)medical undergraduates studied lower limb anatomy with stereoscopic 3D AR model (n = 20), monoscopic 3D desktop model (n = 20), or two-dimensional (2D) anatomical atlas (n = 18). Visual-spatial abilities were tested with Mental Rotation Test (MRT), Paper Folding Test (PFT), and Mechanical Reasoning (MR) Test. Anatomical knowledge was assessed by the validated 30-item paper posttest. The overall posttest scores in the stereoscopic 3D AR group (47.8%) were similar to those in the monoscopic 3D desktop group (38.5%; P = 0.240) and the 2D anatomical atlas group (50.9%; P = 1.00). When stratified by visual-spatial abilities test scores, students with lower MRT scores achieved higher posttest scores in the stereoscopic 3D AR group (49.2%) as compared to the monoscopic 3D desktop group (33.4%; P = 0.015) and similar to the scores in the 2D group (46.4%; P = 0.99). Participants with higher MRT scores performed equally well in all conditions. It is instrumental to consider an aptitude-treatment interaction caused by visual-spatial abilities when designing research into 3D learning. Further research is needed to identify contributing features and the most effective way of introducing this technology into current educational programs.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]