Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31269322›Full record

ArticleAnatomical sciences education2020

Neuroanatomy Learning: Augmented Reality vs. Cross-Sections.

Dylan J H A Henssen, Loes van den Heuvel, Guido De Jong, Marc A T M Vorstenbosch, Anne-Marie van Cappellen van Walsum, Marianne M Van den Hurk, Jan G M Kooloos, Ronald H M A Bartels

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Anatomical sciences education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality in Health Sciences: A Guide to Decision-Making in Higher Education.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The impacts of augmented reality teaching tools in health professional education.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dylan J H A HenssenDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3915-3034
Loes van den HeuvelDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Guido De JongDepartment of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marc A T M VorstenboschDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Anne-Marie van Cappellen van WalsumDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marianne M Van den HurkDepartment of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jan G M KooloosDepartment of Anatomy, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ronald H M A BartelsDepartment of Neurosurgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroanatomy education is a challenging field which could benefit from modern innovations, such as augmented reality (AR) applications. This study investigates the differences on test scores, cognitive load, and motivation after neuroanatomy learning using AR applications or using cross-sections of the brain. Prior to two practical assignments, a pretest (extended matching questions, double-choice questions and a test on cross-sectional anatomy) and a mental rotation test (MRT) were completed. Sex and MRT scores were used to stratify students over the two groups. The two practical assignments were designed to study (1) general brain anatomy and (2) subcortical structures. Subsequently, participants completed a posttest similar to the pretest and a motivational questionnaire. Finally, a focus group interview was conducted to appraise participants' perceptions. Medical and biomedical students (n = 31); 19 males (61.3%) and 12 females (38.7%), mean age 19.2 ± 1.7 years participated in this experiment. Students who worked with cross-sections (n = 16) showed significantly more improvement on test scores than students who worked with GreyMapp-AR (P = 0.035) (n = 15). Further analysis showed that this difference was primarily caused by significant improvement on the cross-sectional questions. Students in the cross-section group, moreover, experienced a significantly higher germane (P = 0.009) and extraneous cognitive load (P = 0.016) than students in the GreyMapp-AR group. No significant differences were found in motivational scores. To conclude, this study suggests that AR applications can play a role in future anatomy education as an add-on educational tool, especially in learning three-dimensional relations of anatomical structures.

Indexed as

Augmented RealityAdolescentAnatomy, Cross-SectionalBrainCognitionCurriculumDissectionEducationEducational MeasurementFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalLearningMagnetic Resonance AngiographyMaleNeuroanatomyaugmented realitycross-sectional anatomymedical educationneuroanatomyneuroanatomy educationneuroscienceundergraduate education

Identifiers

PMID31269322
PMCPMC7317366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.