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
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/medu.13683
复制
发表时间：
2018-11-01
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Norman, Geoffrey R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wainman, Bruce;Wolak, Liliana;Norman, Geoffrey R.
背景尽管多项研究（Anat Sci Educ, 8 [6], 525, 2015）表明基于计算机的解剖程序（三维可视化技术[3DVT]）不如普通物理模型（PM），但其机制尚不清楚。在这项研究中，我们探索了三种机制：触觉反馈、适当的转移处理和立体视觉。 方法 这些假设的测试需要九组 20 名学生：其中两组来自之前的研究 (Anat Sci Educ, 6 [4], 211, 2013)，另外七组是新组。 (i) 为了探索物理模型的触觉反馈，一组参与者被允许在学习过程中触摸模型；在另一组中，他们不能； (ii) 为了测试“适当转移处理”(TAP)，将学习（PM 或 3DVT）与测试（尸体或尸体的二维显示）交叉； (iii) 最后，为了检验立体视觉的作用，我们测试了在 PM 和 3DVT 上学习和测试期间、学习期间或根本不遮盖非主眼的组。该测试是一项 15 项简答测试，需要命名尸体骨盆上的结构。提供了姓名列表。 结果 触觉反馈测试显示，无论参与者是否有触觉反馈，PM 均优于 3DVT：有触觉反馈的 PM 的正确率为 67%，没有触觉反馈的 PM 的正确率为 69%，而 3DVT 的正确率为 41% (p < 0.0001)。在 TAP 研究中，无论二维与三维测试结果如何，PM 的 3DVT 平均得分分别为 74% 和 43% (p < 0.0001)。第三项研究表明，当学习和测试时遮盖非主视眼时，PM 相对于 3DVT (28%) 的双眼视觉优势几乎消失 (5%)。 结论 物理模型优于计算机投影，主要是由于 PM 的立体视觉的结果。研究结果对数字技术在空间学习中的使用具有重要意义。
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.