Computer visualizations: Factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension

Computer visualizations are increasingly common in education across a range of subject disciplines, including anatomy. Despite optimism about their educational potential, students sometime have difficulty learning from these visualizations. The purpose of this study was to explore a range of factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension before and after instruction with different computer visualizations. Three major factors were considered: (1) visualization ability (VZ) of learners, (2) dynamism of the visual display, and (3) interactivity of the system. Participants (N = 60) of differing VZs (high, low) studied a group of anatomical structures in one of three visual conditions (control, static, dynamic) and one of two interactive conditions (interactive, non‐interactive). Before and after the study phase, participants' comprehension of spatial anatomical information was assessed using a multiple‐choice spatial anatomy task (SAT) involving the mental rotation of the anatomical structures, identification of the structures in 2D cross‐sections, and localization of planes corresponding to given cross‐sections. Results indicate that VZ had a positive influence on SAT performance but instruction with different computer visualizations could modulate the effect of VZ on task performance. Anat Sci Educ. © 2012 American Association of Anatomists.

[1]  C. Hulsebosch,et al.  Status of gross anatomy in the U.S. and Canada: Dilemma for the 21st century , 1994 .

[2]  Lawrence J Rizzolo,et al.  Design principles for developing an efficient clinical anatomy course , 2006, Medical teacher.

[3]  Matthew D B S Tam,et al.  Building virtual models by postprocessing radiology images: A guide for anatomy faculty , 2010, Anatomical sciences education.

[4]  David A. Rettinger,et al.  How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  Michael C. Pyryt.  Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies , 1998 .

[6]  Kevin W Eva,et al.  Is There Any Real Virtue of Virtual Reality?: The Minor Role of Multiple Orientations in Learning Anatomy from Computers , 2002, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[7]  W. Pawlina,et al.  Medical education in the anatomical sciences: The winds of change continue to blow , 2009, Anatomical sciences education.

[8]  Daniel R. Montello,et al.  Spatial Reasoning With External Visualizations: What Matters Is What You See, Not Whether You Interact , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  John McGhee,et al.  3‐D visualization and animation technologies in anatomical imaging , 2010, Journal of anatomy.

[10]  R. J. Cowie,et al.  The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics , 2002, The Anatomical record.

[11]  E D Prentice,et al.  Stereoscopic anatomy: evaluation of a new teaching system in human gross anatomy. , 1977, Journal of medical education.

[12]  S. Daniel,et al.  Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer‐generated three‐dimensional anatomical ear model , 2006, Medical education.

[13]  V. Spitzer,et al.  The visible human male: a technical report. , 1996, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[14]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Effects of Knowledge and Spatial Ability on Learning from Animation , 2007 .

[15]  Örjan Smedby,et al.  Web‐based interactive 3D visualization as a tool for improved anatomy learning , 2009, Anatomical sciences education.

[16]  John B. Carroll.  Human cognitive abilities: Abilities in the Domain of Visual Perception , 1993 .

[17]  W. Cottam,et al.  Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors , 1999, Clinical anatomy.

[18]  Patricia S O'Sullivan,et al.  Comparison of traditional methods with 3D computer models in the instruction of hepatobiliary anatomy , 2011, Anatomical sciences education.

[19]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning , 2004 .

[20]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Individual Differences Among Users: Implications for the Design of 3D Medical Visualizations , 2008 .

[21]  G R Norman,et al.  Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning? , 1999, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[22]  Mireille Betrancourt,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Animation and Interactivity Principles in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[23]  Cornelius Rosse,et al.  Computer‐generated three‐dimensional reconstruction of the mediastinm correlated with sectional and radiological anatomy , 1992 .

[24]  M. Hegarty.  Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions , 2004 .

[25]  Pat Molholt,et al.  New views of male pelvic anatomy: Role of computer‐generated 3D images 1 , 2004, Clinical anatomy.

[26]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Direct Manipulation Interfaces , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[27]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[28]  Timothy D Wilson,et al.  A head in virtual reality: Development of a dynamic head and neck model , 2009, Anatomical sciences education.

[29]  D. Patten,et al.  Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future , 2006, Medical education.

[30]  S. Ainsworth,et al.  Multiple Forms of Dynamic Representation. , 2004 .

[31]  S. Vandenberg,et al.  Mental Rotations, a Group Test of Three-Dimensional Spatial Visualization , 1978, Perceptual and motor skills.

[32]  S. Hamstra,et al.  Visual-spatial abilities in surgical training. , 2000, American journal of surgery.

[33]  A. Miyake,et al.  The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: an individual differences approach. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[34]  Pernilla Qvarfordt,et al.  A First-Personness Approach to Co-operative Multimodal Interaction , 2000, ICMI.

[35]  M. Peters,et al.  A Redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test - Different Versions and Factors That Affect Performance , 1995, Brain and Cognition.

[36]  Jiajie Zhang,et al.  Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[37]  Aymeric Guillot,et al.  Relationship Between Spatial Abilities, Mental Rotation and Functional Anatomy Learning , 2007, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[38]  Fred Paas,et al.  Interactive and dynamic visualizations in teaching and learning of anatomy: a cognitive load perspective. , 2005, Anatomical record. Part B, New anatomist.

[39]  Timothy D Wilson,et al.  Explorable three‐dimensional digital model of the female pelvis, pelvic contents, and perineum for anatomical education , 2010, Anatomical sciences education.

[40]  G. Norman,et al.  How medical students learn spatial anatomy , 2001, The Lancet.

[41]  Scott Lozanoff,et al.  Three‐dimensional reconstruction of the ankle by means of ultrathin slice plastination , 2007, Clinical anatomy.

[42]  Lawrence J Rizzolo,et al.  Design, implementation, and evaluation of an innovative anatomy course , 2010, Anatomical sciences education.

[43]  Mireille Bétrancourt.  Chapter 18. The Animation and Interactivity Principles in Multimedia Learning , 2004 .

[44]  Christopher L. Camp,et al.  Restructuring a basic science course for core competencies: An example from anatomy teaching , 2009, Medical teacher.

[45]  S. Hamstra,et al.  Effect of visual-spatial ability on learning of spatially-complex surgical skills , 2002, The Lancet.

[46]  Daniel R. Montello,et al.  How spatial abilities enhance, and are enhanced by, dental education , 2009 .

[47]  Detlev Leutner,et al.  The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations - Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[48]  J. McLachlan,et al.  Teaching anatomy without cadavers , 2004, Medical education.

[49]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Individual differences in use of external visualisations to perform an internal visualisation task. , 2007 .

[50]  M. Just,et al.  Cognitive coordinate systems: accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. , 1985, Psychological review.

[51]  T. Salthouse.  The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. , 1996, Psychological review.

[52]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Getting a Handle on Learning Anatomy with Interactive Three-Dimensional Graphics , 2009 .

[53]  Thomas Huk,et al.  Who benefits from learning with 3D models? the case of spatial ability , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[54]  K. Rochford.  Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students , 1985, Medical education.

[55]  Michael J. Ackerman,et al.  Technical Milestone: The visible Human Male: A Technical Report , 1996, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[56]  R. Mayer,et al.  For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. , 1994 .