Trial reportAnatomical sciences education2023
Effect of binocular disparity on learning anatomy with stereoscopic augmented reality visualization: A double center randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Anatomical sciences education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effectiveness of augmented reality/mixed reality in medical education: a meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- 3D visualization technology for Learning human anatomy among medical students and residents: a meta- and regression analysis.BMC medical education · 2024Pooled it
- The effectiveness of immersive virtual reality as a student-centered tool for learning neuroanatomy: A single-blind randomized controlled trial with physiotherapy students.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of glasses-free 3D anatomy learning materials through a randomized control study with a puzzle-like method.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Trial
- Effect of binocular disparity on learning anatomy with stereoscopic augmented reality visualization: A double center randomized controlled trial.Anatomical sciences education · 2023Trial
- Optimizing cognitive load in digital nursing education: the role of pre-academic performance and material modalities.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the relationship between the 2D:4D ratio, fine hand motor skills, and anatomy practical examination performance in first-year medical students.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Does stereoscopic immersive virtual reality have a significant impact on anatomy education? A literature review.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Review
- The Application of 3D Anatomy for Teaching Veterinary Clinical Neurology.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Quantifying the Impact of Signal-to-background Ratios on Surgical Discrimination of Fluorescent Lesions.Molecular imaging and biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Binocular disparity provides one of the important depth cues within stereoscopic three-dimensional (3D) visualization technology. However, there is limited research on its effect on learning within a 3D augmented reality (AR) environment. This study evaluated the effect of binocular disparity on the acquisition of anatomical knowledge and perceived cognitive load in relation to visual-spatial abilities. In a double-center randomized controlled trial, first-year (bio)medical undergraduates studied lower extremity anatomy in an interactive 3D AR environment either with a stereoscopic 3D view (n = 32) or monoscopic 3D view (n = 34). Visual-spatial abilities were tested with a mental rotation test. Anatomical knowledge was assessed by a validated 30-item written test and 30-item specimen test. Cognitive load was measured by the NASA-TLX questionnaire. Students in the stereoscopic 3D and monoscopic 3D groups performed equally well in terms of percentage correct answers (written test: 47.9 ± 15.8 vs. 49.1 ± 18.3; P = 0.635; specimen test: 43.0 ± 17.9 vs. 46.3 ± 15.1; P = 0.429), and perceived cognitive load scores (6.2 ± 1.0 vs. 6.2 ± 1.3; P = 0.992). Regardless of intervention, visual-spatial abilities were positively associated with the specimen test scores (η
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.