An innovative approach to supplement the teaching of the spatial gross anatomy relationships of muscles to undergraduates in health sciences

Clinical Anatomy

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 339-347

  Gangata, Hope ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Anatomy; Human musculature; Medical education; Paper material; Three dimensional

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY; ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH SCIENCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL STUDENT; MUSCLE; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SKELETON; TEACHING;

ANATOMY; EXTREMITIES; HUMANS; MODELS, ANATOMIC; MUSCLE, SKELETAL; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY; PHYSICAL THERAPY (SPECIALTY); QUESTIONNAIRES; TEACHING;

EID: 43249113702     PISSN: 08973806     EISSN: 10982353     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ca.20625     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH. 1991. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 324:370-376.
2. Chechile RA, Anderson JE, Krafczek SA, Coley SL. 1996. A syntactic complexity effect with visual patterns: Evidence for the syntactic nature of the memory representation. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 22:654-669.
3. Elghrably I, Fraser SG. 2006. An observational study of laterality errors in a sample of clinical records. Eye 2008; 22:340-343.
4. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. 2001. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet 357:363-364.
5. Granger NA, Calleson D. 2007. The impact of alternating dissection on student performance in a medical anatomy course: Are dissection videos an effective substitute for actual dissection? Clin Anat 20:315-321.
6. Julesz B. 1981. Figure and ground perception in briefly presented isodipole textures. In: Kubovy M, Pomerantz JR, editors. Perceptual Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Koffka K. 1935. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt.
8. Marks SC Jr. 2000. The role of three-dimensional information in health care and medical education: The implications for anatomy and dissection. Clin Anat 13:448-452.
9. Marks SC Jr. 2001. Recovering the significance of 3-dimensional data in medical education and clinical practice. Clin Anat 14:90-91.
10. Mathewson JH. 1999. Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science overlooked by educators. Sci Educ 83:33-54.
11. Mayer RE. 1983. Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition. New York: W.H. Freeman. p 35-67.
12. McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. 2004. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ 38:418-424.
13. Miller R. 2000. Approaches to learning spatial relationships in gross anatomy: Perspective from wider principles of learning. Clin Anat 13:439-443.
14. Rochford K. 1985. Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Med Educ 19:13-26.
15. Mutyala S, Cahill DR. 1996. Catching up. Clin Anat 9:53-56.
16. Schmidt D, Odland R. 2004. Mirror-image reversal of coronal computed tomography scans. Laryngoscope 114:1562-1565.
17. Silverthorn DU, Ober WCC, Garrison CW, Silverthorn AC, Johnson BR. 2007. Human Physiology, An Intergrated Approach. 4th Ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings Publishers.
18. Standring S. (ed.) 2007. Gray's Anatomy. 39th Ed. London: Churchill Livingstone. 396 p.
19. Stoeckel MC, Weder B, Binkofski F, Buccino G, Shah NJ, Seitz PJ. 2003. A fronto-parietal circuit for tactile object discrimination: An event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 19: 1103-1114.