Stereoscopic three‐dimensional visualisation technology in anatomy learning: A meta‐analysis.
Saved in:
| Title: | Stereoscopic three‐dimensional visualisation technology in anatomy learning: A meta‐analysis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Bogomolova, Katerina, Hierck, Beerend P., Looijen, Agnes E. M., Pilon, Johanne N. M., Putter, Hein, Wainman, Bruce, Hovius, Steven E. R., Hage, Jos A. |
| Source: | Medical Education. Mar2021, Vol. 55 Issue 3, p317-327. 11p. 1 Diagram, 4 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Anatomy, CINAHL database, Confidence intervals, Depth perception, Educational technology, Information storage & retrieval systems, Medical databases, Medical information storage & retrieval systems, Learning strategies, MEDLINE, Meta-analysis, Systematic reviews, Quantitative research, Teaching methods |
| Abstract: | Objectives: The features that contribute to the apparent effectiveness of three‐dimensional visualisation technology [3DVT] in teaching anatomy are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the role of stereopsis in learning anatomy with 3DVT. Methods: The review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA Standards. Literature search of English articles was performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL EBSCOhost, ERIC EBSCOhost, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases until November 2019. Study selection, data extraction and study appraisal were performed independently by two authors. Articles were assessed for methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. For quantitative analysis, studies were grouped based on relative between‐intervention differences in instructional methods and type of control conditions. Results: A total of 3934 citations were obtained of which 67 underwent a full‐text review. Ultimately, 13 randomised controlled trials were included in the meta‐analysis. When interactive, stereoscopic 3D models were compared to interactive, monoscopic 3D models within a single level of instructional design, for example isolating stereopsis as the only true manipulated element in the experimental design, an effect size [ES] of 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26‐0.80; P <.00001) was found. In comparison with 2D images within multiple levels of instructional design, an effect size of 0.45 (95% CI 0.10‐0.81; P <.002) was found. Stereopsis had no effect on learning when utilised with non‐interactive 3D images (ES = −0.87, 95% CI −2.09‐0.35; P =.16). Conclusion: Stereopsis is an important distinguishing element of 3DVT that has a significant positive effect on acquisition of anatomical knowledge when utilised within an interactive 3D environment. A distinction between stereoscopic and monoscopic 3DVT is essential to make in anatomical education and research. Want to help students learn anatomy virtually? This meta‐analysis reveals that the depth perception enabled by stereoscopic image presentation is crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objectives: The features that contribute to the apparent effectiveness of three‐dimensional visualisation technology [3DVT] in teaching anatomy are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the role of stereopsis in learning anatomy with 3DVT. Methods: The review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA Standards. Literature search of English articles was performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL EBSCOhost, ERIC EBSCOhost, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases until November 2019. Study selection, data extraction and study appraisal were performed independently by two authors. Articles were assessed for methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. For quantitative analysis, studies were grouped based on relative between‐intervention differences in instructional methods and type of control conditions. Results: A total of 3934 citations were obtained of which 67 underwent a full‐text review. Ultimately, 13 randomised controlled trials were included in the meta‐analysis. When interactive, stereoscopic 3D models were compared to interactive, monoscopic 3D models within a single level of instructional design, for example isolating stereopsis as the only true manipulated element in the experimental design, an effect size [ES] of 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26‐0.80; P <.00001) was found. In comparison with 2D images within multiple levels of instructional design, an effect size of 0.45 (95% CI 0.10‐0.81; P <.002) was found. Stereopsis had no effect on learning when utilised with non‐interactive 3D images (ES = −0.87, 95% CI −2.09‐0.35; P =.16). Conclusion: Stereopsis is an important distinguishing element of 3DVT that has a significant positive effect on acquisition of anatomical knowledge when utilised within an interactive 3D environment. A distinction between stereoscopic and monoscopic 3DVT is essential to make in anatomical education and research. Want to help students learn anatomy virtually? This meta‐analysis reveals that the depth perception enabled by stereoscopic image presentation is crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03080110 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/medu.14352 |
