Computer visualizations: Factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 98-108

  Nguyen, Ngan ^a   Nelson, Andrew J ^b   Wilson, Timothy D ^a  

^a WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Animation; Computer visualization; Computer assisted learning; Dynamism; Gross anatomy education; Interactivity; Learning; Medical education; Spatial ability

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANATOMY; ARTICLE; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CANADA; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CURRICULUM; DEPTH PERCEPTION; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEMORY; METHODOLOGY; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEACHING; UNIVERSITY; VISION;

ADULT; ANATOMY; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY; MODELS, ANATOMIC; ONTARIO; SPACE PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TEACHING; UNIVERSITIES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84857794397     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: 19359780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.1258     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ainsworth S, Van Labeke N. 2004. Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learn Instruct 14: 241-255.
2. Anastakis DJ, Hamstra SJ, Matsumoto ED. 2000. Visual-spatial abilities in surgical training. Am J Surg 179: 469-471.
3. Aziz MA, McKenzie JC, Wilson JS, Cowie RJ, Ayeni SA, Dunn BK. 2002. The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. Anat Rec 269: 20-32.
4. Betrancourt M. 2005. The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning In: Mayer R (Editor). Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.1st Ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p 287-296.
5. Carroll JB. 1993. Abilities in the domain of visual perception. In: Carroll JB (Editor). Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies.1st Ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p 304-363.
6. Cohen CA, Hegarty M. 2007. Individual differences in use of external visualizations to perform an internal visualization task. Appl Cognit Psychol 21: 701-711.
7. Collins TJ, Given RL, Hulsebosch CE, Miller BT. 1994. Status of gross anatomy in the U.S. and Canada: Dilemma for the 21st century. Clin Anat 7: 275-296.
8. Conley DM, Kastella KG, Sundsten JW, Rauschning W, Rosse C. 1992. Computer-generated three-dimensional reconstruction of the mediastinum correlated with sectional and radiological anatomy. Clin Anat 5: 185-202.
9. Cottam WW. 1999. Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors. Clin Anat 12: 55-65.
10. Drake RL, McBride JM, Lachman N, Pawlina W. 2009. Medical education in the anatomical sciences: The winds of change continue to blow. Anat Sci Educ 2: 253-259.
11. Garg A, Norman G, Spero L, Maheshwari P. 1999. Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? Acad Med 74: S87-S89.
12. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. 2001. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet 357: 363-364.
13. Garg AX, Norman GR, Eva KW, Spero L, Sharan S. 2002. Is there any real virtue of virtual reality?: The minor role of multiple orientations in learning anatomy from computers. Acad Med 77: S97-S99.
14. Gregory JK, Lachman N, Camp CL, Chen LP, Pawlina W. 2009. Restructuring a basic science course for core competencies: An example from anatomy teaching. Med Teach 31: 855-861.
15. Guillot A, Champely S, Batier C, Thiriet P, Collet C. 2007. Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 12: 491-507.
16. Hegarty M. 2004. Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learn Instruct 14: 343-351.
17. Hegarty M, Kriz S. 2008. Effects of knowledge and spatial ability on learning from animation. In: Lowe R, Schnotz W (Editors). Learning with Animation: Research Implications for Design.1st Ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p 3-29.
18. Hegarty M, Keehner M, Khooshabeh P, Montello DR. 2009. How spatial abilities enhance, and are enhanced by, dental education. Learn Indiv Differ 19: 61-70.
19. Hoffler TN, Leutner D. 2011. The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations-Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis. Comput Hum Behav 27: 209-216.
20. Huk T. 2006. Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. J Comput Assist Learn 22: 392-404.
21. Hutchins EL, Hollan JD, Norman DA. 1985. Direct manipulation interfaces. Hum Comput Interact 1: 311-338.
22. Just MA, Carpenter PA. 1985. Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. Psychol Rev 92: 137-172.
23. Keedy AW, Durack JC, Sandhu P, Chen EM, O'Sullivan PS, Breiman RS. 2011. Comparison of traditional methods with 3D computer models in the instruction of hepatobiliary anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 4: 84-91.
24. Keehner M, Hegarty M, Cohen C, Khooshabeh P, Montello DR. 2008a. Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: What matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cognit Sci 32: 1099-1132.
25. Keehner M, Khooshabeh P, Hegarty M. 2008b. Individual differences among users: Implications for the design of 3D medical visualizations. In: Dong F, Ghinea G, Chen SY (Editors). User Centered Design for Medical Visualization.1st Ed. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, an imprint of IGI Global. p 1-24.
26. Khalil MK, Paas F, Johnson TE, Payer AF. 2005. Interactive and dynamic visualizations in teaching and learning of anatomy: A cognitive load perspective. Anat Rec 286B: 8-14.
27. Lowe R. 2004. Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learn Instruct 14: 257-274.
28. Mayer RE, Sims VK. 1994. For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 83: 389-401.
29. McGhee J. 2010. 3-D visualization and animation technologies in anatomical imaging. J Anat 216: 264-270.
30. McLachlan JC, Patten D. 2006. Anatomy teaching: Ghosts of the past, present and future. Med Educ 40: 243-253.
31. McLachlan JC, Bligh J, Bradley P, Searle J. 2004. Teaching anatomy without cadavers. Med Educ 38: 418-424.
32. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Rettinger DA, Shah P, Hegarty M. 2001. How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. J Exp Psychol Gen 130: 621-640.
33. Nguyen N, Wilson TD. 2009. A head in virtual reality: Development of a dynamic head and neck model. Anat Sci Educ 2: 294-301.
34. Nicholson DT, Chalk C, Funnell WR, Daniel SJ. 2006. Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Med Educ 40: 1081-1087.
35. Peters M, Laeng B, Latham K, Jackson M, Zaiyouna R, Richardson C. 1995. A redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test: Different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain Cogn 28: 39-58.
36. Petersson H, Sinkvist D, Wang C, Smedby O. 2009. Web-based interactive 3D visualization as a tool for improved anatomy learning. Anat Sci Educ 2: 61-68.
37. Prentice ED, Metcalf WK, Quinn TH, Sharp JG, Jensen RH, Holyoke EA. 1977. Stereoscopic anatomy: Evaluation of a new teaching system in human gross anatomy. J Med Educ 52: 758-763.
38. Qvarfordt P, Santamarta L. 2000. A first-personness approach to co-operative multimodal interaction. In: Tan T, Shi Y, Goa W (Editors). Proceedings of Third International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2000): Advances in Multimodal Interfaces; Beijing, China, 2000, Oct 14-16. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. p 650-657.
39. Rizzolo LJ, Stewart WB, O'Brien M, Haims A, Rando W, Abrahams J, Dunne S, Wang S, Aden M. 2006. Design principles for developing an efficient clinical anatomy course. Med Teach 28: 142-151.
40. Rizzolo LJ, Rando WC, O'Brien MK, Haims AH, Abrahams JJ, Stewart WB. 2010. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 3: 109-120.
41. Rochford K. 1985. Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Med Educ 19: 13-26.
42. Salthouse TA. 1996. The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychol Rev 103: 403-428.
43. Sergovich A, Johnson M, Wilson TD. 2010. Explorable three-dimensional digital model of the female pelvis, pelvic contents, and perineum for anatomical education. Anat Sci Educ 3: 127-133.
44. Shah P, Miyake A. 1996. The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. J Exp Psychol Gen 125: 4-27.
45. Sora MC, Genser-Strobl B, Radu J, Lozanoff S. 2007. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the ankle by means of ultrathin slice plastination. Clin Anat 20: 196-200.
46. Spitzer V, Ackerman MJ, Scherzinger AL, Whitlock D. 1996. The visible human male: A technical report. J Am Med Inform Assoc 3: 118-130.
47. Stull AT, Hegarty M, Mayer RE. 2009. Getting a handle on learning anatomy with interactive three-dimensional graphics J Educ Psychol 101: 803-816.
48. Tam M. 2010. Building virtual models by postprocessing radiology images: A guide for anatomy faculty. Anat Sci Educ 3: 261-266.
49. Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR. 1978. Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Percept Mot Skills 47: 599-604.
50. Venuti JM, Imielinska C, Molholt P. 2004. New views of male pelvic anatomy: Role of computer-generated 3D images. Clin Anat 17: 261-271.
51. Wanzel KR, Hamstra SJ, Anastakis DJ, Matsumoto ED, Cusimano MD. 2002. Effect of visual-spatial ability on learning of spatially-complex surgical skills. Lancet 359: 230-231.
52. Zhang J, Norman DA. 1994. Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognit Sci 18: 87-122.