z-logo
Premium
The superiority of three‐dimensional physical models to two‐dimensional computer presentations in anatomy learning
Author(s) -
Wainman Bruce,
Wolak Liliana,
Pukas Giancarlo,
Zheng Eric,
Norman Geoffrey R
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1111/medu.13683
Subject(s) - haptic technology , test (biology) , cadaver , stereoscopy , learning effect , transfer of learning , computer science , medicine , simulation , artificial intelligence , anatomy , paleontology , economics , biology , microeconomics
Background Although several studies ( Anat Sci Educ , 8 [6], 525, 2015) have shown that computer‐based anatomy programs (three‐dimensional visualisation technology [3 DVT ]) are inferior to ordinary physical models ( PM s), the mechanism is not clear. In this study, we explored three mechanisms: haptic feedback, transfer‐appropriate processing and stereoscopic vision. Methods The test of these hypotheses required nine groups of 20 students: two from a previous study ( Anat Sci Educ , 6 [4], 211, 2013) and seven new groups. (i) To explore haptic feedback from physical models, participants in one group were allowed to touch the model during learning; in the other group, they could not; (ii) to test ‘transfer‐appropriate processing’ ( TAP ), learning ( PM or 3 DVT ) was crossed with testing (cadaver or two‐dimensional display of cadaver); (iii) finally, to examine the role of stereo vision, we tested groups who had the non‐dominant eye covered during learning and testing, during learning, or not at all, on both PM and 3 DVT . The test was a 15‐item short‐answer test requiring naming structures on a cadaver pelvis. A list of names was provided. Results The test of haptic feedback showed a large advantage of the PM over 3 DVT regardless of whether or not participants had haptic feedback: 67% correct for the PM with haptic feedback, 69% for PM without haptic feedback, versus 41% for 3 DVT (p < 0.0001). In the study of TAP , the PM had an average score of 74% versus 43% for 3 DVT (p < 0.0001) regardless of two‐dimensional versus three‐dimensional test outcome. The third study showed that the large advantage of the PM over 3 DVT (28%) with binocular vision nearly disappeared (5%) when the non‐dominant eye was covered for both learning and testing. Conclusions A physical model is superior to a computer projection, primarily as a consequence of stereoscopic vision with the PM . The results have implications for the use of digital technology in spatial learning.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here