The impact of stereoscopic imagery and motion on anatomical structure recognition and visual attention performance

Remmele, Martin; Schmidt, Elena; Lingenfelder, Melissa; Martens, Andreas

doi:10.1002/ase.1704

Cited by 18 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The superiority of learning with stereoscopic vision has been demonstrated in one previous study, although they showed that this was confined to static presentations, where the participant could not manipulate the representation. In the present study, participants were at liberty to move both PM and 3DVT models at will in any direction, and the advantage of stereoscopic vision was still present.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Remmele compared stereoscopic to non‐stereoscopic presentations on a computer screen (using polarising glasses) and found a large advantage for stereo, when the presentation was static (ES = 1.11). This leaves unanswered how a PM would compare to a 3DVT dynamic but non‐stereoscopic presentation, because, as Remmele pointed out, a dynamic presentation contains many of the visual cues to the third dimension. Moreover, dynamic movement is a component of both PM and 3DVT presentations.…”

Section: Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The superiority of three‐dimensional physical models to two‐dimensional computer presentations in anatomy learning

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although several studies (Anat Sci Educ, 8 [6], 525, 2015) have shown that computer‐based anatomy programs (three‐dimensional visualisation technology [3DVT]) are inferior to ordinary physical models (PMs), 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 3DVT) 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 3DVT. 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 3DVT 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 3DVT (p < 0.0001). In the study of TAP, the PM had an average score of 74% versus 43% for 3DVT (p < 0.0001) regardless of two‐dimensional versus three‐dimensional test outcome. The third study showed that the large advantage of the PM over 3DVT (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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The superiority of three‐dimensional physical models to two‐dimensional computer presentations in anatomy learning

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wainman et al (2018) did show that the removal of stereopsis during the learning task significantly decreased performance on the PM but not the 2D VR model which indicates both that stereopsis is a critical determinant of performance in anatomy learning and that stereopsis is not present in 2D VR. Previous studies have also shown that a critical element for a modality to yield a learning advantage over a simple static 2D display is the provision of true stereopsis (Cui et al, 2017;Hackett and Proctor, 2018;Remmele et al, 2018;Wainman et al, 2018). A PM selfevidently incorporates 3D; however, it is less clear whether MR and VR technologies do.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A final study that systematically explored two causal features was conducted by Remmele et al (2018) who taught anatomy of the ear using purpose-built software and hardware, systematically varying stereoscopic or non-stereoscopic presentation, and dynamic under user control or static presentation. They found a large main effect of stereoscopic presentation (consistent with Cui et al, 2017, Hackett and Proctor, 2018and Wainman et al, 2018, no effect of dynamic presentation (consistent with observations from Garg et al, 1999 andKhot et al, 2013), and a small interaction (Remmele et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Critical Role of Stereopsis in Virtual and Mixed Reality Learning Environments

Wainman

Pukas

Wolak

et al. 2019

Anatomical Sciences Ed

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anatomy education has been revolutionized through digital media, resulting in major advances in realism, portability, scalability, and user satisfaction. However, while such approaches may well be more portable, realistic, or satisfying than traditional photographic presentations, it is less clear that they have any superiority in terms of student learning. In this study, it was hypothesized that virtual and mixed reality presentations of pelvic anatomy will have an advantage over two-dimensional (2D) presentations and perform approximately equal to physical models and that this advantage over 2D presentations will be reduced when stereopsis is decreased by covering the non-dominant eye. Groups of 20 undergraduate students learned pelvic anatomy under seven conditions: physical model with and without stereo vision, mixed reality with and without stereo vision, virtual reality with and without stereo vision, and key views on a computer monitor. All were tested with a cadaveric pelvis and a 15-item, short-answer recognition test. Compared to the key views, the physical model had a 70% increase in accuracy in structure identification; the virtual reality a 25% increase, and the mixed reality a non-significant 2.5% change. Blocking stereopsis reduced performance on the physical model by 15%, on virtual reality by 60%, but by only 2.5% on the mixed reality technology. The data show that virtual and mixed reality technologies tested are inferior to physical models and that true stereopsis is critical in learning anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 13: 398-405.

show abstract

“…Three‐dimensional representations of the human body have been used successfully as additional tools to teach anatomy, e.g., Zygote Body, and were found to be cost‐effective and welcomed by students (Estai and Bunt, 2016; Losco et al, 2016; Preim and Saalfeld, 2018). The introduction of virtual reality (VR) in science, offered a learning alternative that produced a sensation of depth and movement similar to that perceived in the real world (Steuer, 1992; Wainman et al, 2018); this immersive experience, capable of enhancing the appreciation of spatial relations between structures was successfully applied to anatomy (Remmele et al, 2018). As a training tool, VR was found to improve SA, particularly in women, closing the gender gap in post‐training SA scores (Dünser et al, 2006), despite temporary adverse effects, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does spatial awareness training affect anatomy learning in medical students?

Gonzales

Ferns

Vorstenbosch

et al. 2020

Anatomical Sciences Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial ability (SA) is the cognitive capacity to understand and mentally manipulate concepts of objects, remembering relationships among their parts and those of their surroundings. Spatial ability provides a learning advantage in science and may be useful in anatomy and technical skills in health care. This study aimed to assess the relationship between SA and anatomy scores in first‐ and second‐year medical students. The training sessions focused on the analysis of the spatial component of objects' structure and their interaction as applied to medicine; SA was tested using the Visualization of Rotation (ROT) test. The intervention group (n = 29) received training and their pre‐ and post‐training scores for the SA tests were compared to a control group (n = 75). Both groups improved their mean scores in the follow‐up SA test (P < 0.010). There was no significant difference in SA scores between the groups for either SA test (P = 0.31, P = 0.90). The SA scores for female students were significantly lower than for male students, both at baseline and follow‐up (P < 0.010). Anatomy training and assessment were administered by the anatomy department of the medical school, and examination scores were not significantly different between the two groups post‐intervention (P = 0.33). However, participants with scores in the bottom quartile for SA performed worse in the anatomy questions (P < 0.001). Spatial awareness training did not improve SA or anatomy scores; however, SA may identify students who may benefit from additional academic support.

show abstract

The impact of stereoscopic imagery and motion on anatomical structure recognition and visual attention performance

Cited by 18 publications

References 57 publications

The superiority of three‐dimensional physical models to two‐dimensional computer presentations in anatomy learning

The superiority of three‐dimensional physical models to two‐dimensional computer presentations in anatomy learning

The Critical Role of Stereopsis in Virtual and Mixed Reality Learning Environments

Does spatial awareness training affect anatomy learning in medical students?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About