Learning from Two‐Dimensional (2D) versus Three‐Dimensional Anatomical Models: Assessing Working Memory Requirements Using Electroencephalography (EEG)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Technological advances enabling presentation of content stereoscopically provide a new forum for instructional design in anatomy education that instructors are keen to explore. Studies comparing the effectiveness of learning from two‐dimensional (2D) versus three‐dimensional (3D) visualizations are limited by sole reliance on behavioural evidence like learner preferences and test performance. Though it is reasonable to assume that student performance on knowledge‐based tests is indicative of success, these tests fail to illuminate the subtleties of a learner's interaction with visualization tools in the process of learning. Quantitative measurement of the learning process through direct monitoring of neural processes offers an alternative means of assessment to compare learning 2D and 3D learning in anatomy. Frequency band oscillation activity measured by electroencephalography (EEG) may give direct insight into cognitive resources required during a learning task. Medial frontal theta (MFT) oscillations (4–8 Hz) have been shown to increase with increased working memory requirements. The aim of this study was to compare MFT neural activity as measured by EEG as participants learn from 2D versus 3D anatomical visualizations. MFT activity was compared as novice participants (n = 21) learned to identify and localize neuroanatomical structures using a reinforcement‐based learning paradigm. Participants learned from neuroanatomical models that were presented both with and without stereoscopic disparity using NVIDIA 3D Vision® 2 goggles while EEG data were collected. Data were processed using Brain Vision Analyzer 2 software and statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistics. This study was approved by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary (Ethics ID: REB14‐088). We found that MFT was greater when participants were viewing 3D models compared to 2D models (p < .05), indicating that greater working memory engagement is required to view 3D models. In the context of cognitive load theory (CLT), these findings are important for educators. If students are participating in a learning activity that uses 3D models (which requires greater working memory resources), then less free capacity remains in the total working memory to engage with the learning activity itself. Therefore when educators are designing learning activities that use 3D models, activities may have to be simplified or use techniques that promote germane load as a compensatory strategy to ensure successful learning. Support or Funding Information This research was supported by University of Calgary grants (competitive) awarded to the authors including: Teaching and Learning Grant; University Research Grants Committee (URGC) Seed Grant; and the Data and Technology Fund. SA would like to acknowledge scholarship funding provided by: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Doctoral Fellowship; Alberta Innovates Health Solutions (AIHS) Graduate Studentship, and the Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Doctoral Scholarship. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».