Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42164799›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Exploring cognitive load in anatomy education: a study of 3D virtual reality and 2D learning environments using fNIRS.

Erika Johannessen, Rebecca Benjamin, Paul Hungler, Prithila Angkan, Adam Szulewski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Erika JohannessenDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Rebecca BenjaminSchool of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Paul HunglerDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Prithila AngkanDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Adam SzulewskiDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Although virtual reality (VR) is increasingly deployed as a tool for education, little is known about how learning modality influences cognitive processing or whether wearable neuroimaging technologies can accurately classify cognitive load in this context. Methods: In this study, 21 first-year medical students were randomly assigned to learn cardiac anatomy using either traditional 2D materials ( Results: Results demonstrated that both groups had comparable knowledge gains and reported similar levels of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. In contrast, fNIRS revealed modality-related differences in neural dynamics: learners using 2D materials showed significantly longer time-to-peak oxygenation across multiple channels, with large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 1.18-1.66). Deep learning classifiers successfully distinguished high from low cognitive load using fNIRS features under leave-one-subject-out validation, with extraneous load achieving the strongest performance (91% F1-score and 92% accuracy), followed by intrinsic cognitive load (63% F1-score and 73% accuracy) and total cognitive load (60% F1-score and 78% accuracy). Discussion: Together, these findings highlight the value of combining neurophysiological and subjective measures and demonstrate the feasibility of fNIRS-based cognitive load classification, offering a foundation for future adaptive and learner-responsive instructional systems in medical education.

Indexed as

anatomy educationcognitive loadfNIRSmachine learningmedical educationvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID42164799
PMCPMC13183809

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.