How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models

Anatomical Sciences Education

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 452-462

  Berney, Sandra ^a   Bétrancourt, Mireille ^a   Molinari, Gaëlle ^a,b   Hoyek, Nady ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

^b Distance Learning University Switzerland   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

3D anatomy; Dynamic visualization; Functional anatomy; Gross anatomy education; Kinesiology education; Mental rotation; Spatial ability

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ANATOMIC MODEL; ANATOMY; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; BIOMECHANICS; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FRANCE; HUMAN; LEARNING; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PSYCHOLOGY; RANDOMIZATION; SCAPULA; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; STUDENT; TEACHING; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; UNIVERSITY; VISION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ANATOMY; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; CURRICULUM; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FRANCE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LEARNING; MODELS, ANATOMIC; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RANDOM ALLOCATION; SCAPULA; SPATIAL NAVIGATION; STUDENTS; TEACHING; UNIVERSITIES; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84940578945     PISSN: 19359772     EISSN: 19359780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ase.1524     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Bétrancourt M, Bauer-Morrison J, Tversky B. 2001. Les animations sont-elles vraiment plus efficaces? Rev d'Intell Artif 14:149-166.
2. Bétrancourt M, Tversky B. 2000. Effect of computer animation on user's performance: A review. Trav Hum 63:311-329.
3. Boucheix J-M, Lowe RK. 2010. An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learn Instr 20:123-135.
4. Boucheix J-M, Schneider E. 2009. Static and animated presentations in learning dynamic mechanical systems. Learn Instr 19:112-127.
5. Carroll JB. 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. 1st Ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 819 p.
6. Cohen CA, Hegarty M. 2007. Individual differences in use of external visualisations to perform an internal visualisation task. Appl Cognit Psychol 21:701-711.
7. Clark RE, Feldon D, van Merrienboer J, Yates K, Early S. 2008. Cognitive task analysis. In: Spector JM, Merrill MD, van Merriënboer JJG, Driscoll MP (Editors). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. 3rd Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p 577-593.
8. Colom R, Contreras MJ, Botella J, Santacreu J. 2001. Vehicles of spatial ability. Pers Indiv Differ 32:903-912.
9. de Koning BB, Tabbers HK. 2011. Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: An embodied perspective. Educ Psychol Rev 23:501-521.
10. Ekstrom RB, French JW, Harman HH, Dermen D. 1976. Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. 1st Ed. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 224 p.
11. 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.
12. Garg A, Norman G, Spero L, Taylor I. 1999. Learning anatomy: Do new computer models improve spatial understanding? Med Teach 21:519-522.
13. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. 2001. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet 357:363-364.
14. 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.
15. Hays TA. 1996. Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. J Educ Comput Res 14:139-155.
16. Hegarty M. 2004. Diagrams in the mind and in the world: Relations between internal and external visualizations. In: Blackwell A, Marriott K, Shimojima A (Editors). Diagrammatic Representation and Inference: Third International Conference, Diagrams 2004. Cambridge, UK, March 2004, Proceedings. 1st Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. p 1-13.
17. Hegarty M. 2005. Multimedia learning about physical systems. In: Mayer RE (Editor). Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. 1st Ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p 447-465.
18. Hegarty M, Keehner M, Cohen C, Montello DR, Lippa Y. 2007. The role of spatial cognition in medicine: Applications for selecting and training professionals. In: Allen GL (Editor). Applied Spatial Cognition: From Research to Cognitive Technology. 1st Ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p 285-316.
19. Hegarty M, Kozhevnikov M. 1999. Types of visual-spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. J Educ Psychol 91:684-689.
20. Hegarty M, Kriz S. 2008. Effect of knowledge and spatial ability on learning from animation. In: Lowe RK, Schnotz W (Editors). Learning with Animation: Research Implications for Design. 1st Ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p 3-29.
21. Hegarty M, Kriz S, Cate C. 2003. The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognit Instruct 21:325-360.
22. Hegarty M, Sims VK. 1994. Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Mem Cognit 22:411-430.
23. Hegarty M, Waller D. 2004. A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence 32:175-191.
24. Hegarty M, Waller DA. 2005. Individual differences in spatial abilities. In: Shah P, Miyake A (Editors). The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking. 1st Ed. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p 121-169.
25. Höffler TN. 2010. Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations-A meta-analytic review. Educ Psychol Rev 22:245-269.
26. Höffler 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.
27. Hoyek N, Collet C, Di Rienzo F, De Almeida M, Guillot A. 2014. Effectiveness of three-dimensional digital animation in teaching human anatomy in an authentic classroom context. Anat Sci Educ 7:430-437.
28. Hoyek N, Collet C, Rastello O, Fargier P, Thiriet P, Guillot A. 2009. Enhancement of mental rotation abilities and its effect on anatomy learning. Teach Learn Med 21:201-206.
29. Huk T. 2006. Who benefits from learning with 3D models? The case of spatial ability. J Comput Assist Learn 22:392-404.
30. Imhof B, Scheiter K, Edelmann J, Gerjets P. 2012. How temporal and spatial aspects of presenting visualizations affect learning about locomotion patterns. Learn Instr 22:193-205.
31. Keehner M, Khooshabeh P. 2002. Computerized representations of 3D structure: How spatial comprehension and patterns of interactivity differ among learners. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium: Reasoning with Mental and External Diagrams; Palo Alto, CA, 2002 March 25-27. p 12-17. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA.
32. Keehner M, Montello DR, Hegarty M, Cohen C. 2004. Effects of interactivity and spatial ability on the comprehension of spatial relations in a 3D computer visualization. In: Forbus KD, Gentner D, Regier T (Editors). Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2004); Chicago, IL, 2004 Aug 5-7. p 1, 576. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.
33. Khacharem A, Zoudji B, Kalyuga S, Ripoll H. 2013. The expertise reversal effect for sequential presentation in dynamic soccer visualizations. J Sport Exerc Psychol 35:260-269.
34. Khot Z, Quinlan K, Norman GR, Wainman B. 2013. The relative effectiveness of computer-based and traditional resources for education in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 6:211-215.
35. Kozhevnikov M, Hegarty M. 2001. A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability. Mem Cognit 29:745-756.
36. Lakoff G, Johnson M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. 1st Ed. New York, NY: Basic Books. 640 p.
37. Langlois J, Wells GA, Lecourtois M, Bergeron G, Yetisir E, Martin M. 2015. Spatial abilities of medical graduates and choice of residency programs. Anat Sci Educ 8:111-119.
38. Linn MC, Peterson AC. 1985. Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Dev 5:1479-1498.
39. Lowe RK. 1999. Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. Eur J Psychol Educ 14:225-244.
40. Lowe RK. 2003. Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learn Instr 13:157-176.
41. Lowe RK, Boucheix J-M. 2009. Complex animations: Cues foster better knowledge structures. In: Proceedings of the 13th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instructions. Fostering Communities of Learners (EARLI 2009); Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009 Aug 25-29. European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Leuven, Belgium.
42. Lufler RS, Zumwalt AC, Romney CA, Hoagland TM. 2012. Effect of visualspatial ability on medical students' performance in a gross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 5:3-9.
43. Luursema J-M, Verwey WB. 2011. The contribution of dynamic exploration to virtual anatomical learning. Adv Hum Comput Interact 2011:965342.
44. Luursema J-M, Verwey WB, Kommers PAM, Annema J-H. 2008. The role of stereopsis in virtual anatomical learning. Interact Comput 20:455-460.
45. 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.
46. Mayer RE. 2002. Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Dir Teach Learn 2002:55-71.
47. Mayer RE, Hegarty M, Mayer S, Campbell J. 2005. When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. J Exp Psychol Appl 11:256-265.
48. 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 86:389-401.
49. McGee MG. 1979. Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and influences. Psychol Bull 86:889-918.
50. 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.
51. Moreno R, Mayer RE. 2000. Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. J Educ Psychol 92:724-733.
52. Narayanan NH, Hegarty M. 2002. Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. Int. J Hum Comput Stud 57:279-315.
53. Nguyen N, Mulla A, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD. 2013. Visuospatial anatomy comprehension: The role of spatial visualization ability and problem-solving strategies. Anat Sci Educ 7:280-288.
54. Nguyen N, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD. 2012. Computer visualizations: Factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension. Anat Sci Educ 5:98-108.
55. Pedersen K. 2012. Supporting students with varied spatial reasoning abilities in the anatomy classroom. Teach Innovat Projects 2:2.
56. 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 29:39-58.
57. Rochford K. 1985. Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Med Educ 19:13-26.
58. Schneider E. 2007. Améliorer la Compréhension des Processus Dynamiques avec des Animations Interactives. De l'Université de Bourgogne: Dijon, France. Doctorate of Philosophy Dissertation. 257 p.
59. Schnotz W, Lowe R. 2003. External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Introduction. Learn Instr 13:117-123.
60. Stieff M. 2007. Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learn Instr 17:219-234.
61. Stull AT, Hegarty M, Mayer RE. 2010. Anatomy learning with virtual objects. In: Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence Spring Symposium (AAAI 2010): Cognitive Shape Processing. Stanford, CA; 2010 Mar 22-24. p 39-44. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence: Menlo Park, CA.
62. Stull AT, Hegarty M, Mayer RE. 2009. Getting a handle on learning anatomy with interactive three-dimensional graphics. J Educ Psychol 101:803-816.
63. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. 2010. The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 3:83-93.
64. Tan S, Hu A, Wilson T, Ladak H, Haase P, Fung K. 2012. Role of a computer-generated three-dimensional laryngeal model in anatomy teaching for advanced learners. J Laryngol Otol 126:395-401.
65. Tarr MJ, Pinker S. 1989. Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition. Cognit Psychol 21:233-282.
66. Thiriet P. 1982. Scientific formation of African physical education professors: Contribution to didactic of the anatomy and physiology, University Lyon II: Lyon, France. Doctorate of Philosophy Dissertation. 298 p.
67. Van Gog T, Paas F, Marcus N, Ayres P, Sweller J. 2009. The mirror-neuron system and observational learning: Implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educ Psychol Rev 21:21-30.
68. Van Sint Jan S, Crudele M, Gashegu J, Feipel V, Poulet P, Salvia P, Hilal I, Sholukha V, Louryan S, Rooze M. 2003. Development of multimedia learning modules for teaching human anatomy: Application to osteology and functional anatomy. Anat Rec 272B:98-106.
69. Vandenberg S, Kuse A. 1978. Mental rotation, a group test of 3-D spatial visualization. Percept Mot Skills 47:599-604.
70. Witkin HA, Oltman PK, Raskin E, Karp SA. 1971. A Manual for the Embedded Figures Test. 1st Ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 32 p.
71. Yang EM, Andre T, Greenbowe TJ. 2003. Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. Int J Sci Educ 25:329-350.