MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3020277160 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.2020.34.s1.00411

Spatial Abilities, Haptic Perception, Anatomy Knowledge and Technical Skills Performance in Health Care

2020· article· en· W3020277160 sur OpenAlexaffabout
J Langlois

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueAnatomy and Medical Technology
Établissements canadiensCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHaptic technologyPerceptionSpatial abilityHaptic perceptionPerspective (graphical)Object (grammar)Cognitive psychologyPsychologyCognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Spatial ability has been defined as a skill in representing, transforming, generating and recalling symbolic, non‐linguistic information. Two distinct human spatial abilities have been identified: visualization and orientation. A sex difference in spatial abilities favoring male has been documented. A pattern of negative age effects on spatial abilities has also been demonstrated. Haptics has been originally defined as the science of human touch. Spatial abilities assessed by vision‐based tests were positively correlated with a drawing score based on blind haptic perception of objects and negatively correlated with time to perform correct drawings of objects from blind haptic perception. Similarly, vision‐based spatial abilities tests were correlated with pictures of objects recognized from blind haptic perception. Decreasing haptic perception while increasing working memory and cognitive load decreased performance on drawings and picture recognition of objects from blind haptic perception. Spatial abilities were correlated to the effect of working memory on drawings, but not on picture recognition of objects. These findings may be explained by the two‐dimensional (2D) nature of picture recognition and three‐dimensional (3D) nature of making a perspective drawing of an object. The interrelationship between spatial abilities tests based on vision, anatomy knowledge and technical skills performance in health care was conceptually viewed as a triangle (Figure) . Spatial abilities and anatomy knowledge An applied anatomy course was chosen by many medical graduates because of training needs rather than innate spatial abilities. In a systematic review, spatial abilities were found to be correlated to anatomy knowledge assessment using practical examination, 3D synthesis from 2D views of structure, drawing of views, and cross‐sections. Evidence was found in a systematic review for improvement of spatial abilities in anatomy education using instruction in anatomy and mental rotations training. Spatial abilities and technical skills in health care A studied sample of medical graduates over a five‐year period was not found to choose their residency programs based on their innate spatial abilities. In a systematic review, spatial abilities were found to be correlated negatively to duration and positively to the quality of technical skills performance in novices and intermediate learners. Spatial abilities test scores were found in a systematic review to be enhanced by courses in abdominal sonography and hands‐on radiology, but were not improved by residency training in General Surgery and first‐year dental curriculum. Anatomy knowledge, technical skills in health care and spatial abilities No studies were identified in a systematic review of the interrelationship between anatomy knowledge, technical skills performance and spatial abilities. Vision‐based spatial abilities tests were correlated to blind haptic perception and were found to be an important skill determinant of individual differences in learning spatial anatomy and technical skills in health care. Support or Funding Information Several research projects were supported by internal grants from the Department of Surgery, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada. Figure 1

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,922
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,323

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,237
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2020
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe FASEB JournalMême sujetAnatomy and Medical TechnologyTravaux en français237 207