Mental practice in postgraduate training: A randomized controlled trial in mastoidectomy skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental practice, the cognitive rehearsal of a task in the absence of overt physical movement, has been successfully used in teaching complex psychomotor tasks including sports and music, and recently, surgical skills. The objectives of this study were, 1) To develop and evaluate a mental practice protocol for mastoidectomy 2) To assess the immediate impact of mental practice on a mastoidectomy surgical task among senior Otolaryngology─Head & Neck Surgery (OHNS) residents. METHOD: Three expert surgeons were interviewed using verbal protocol analysis to develop a mastoidectomy mental practice script. Twelve senior Residents from Canadian training programs were randomized into two groups. All Residents were video-recorded performing a baseline mastoidectomy in a temporal bone lab. The intervention group received mental practice training, while the control group undertook self-directed textbook study. All subjects were then video-recorded performing a second mastoidectomy. Changes in pre- and post-test scores using validated expert ratings, the Task Specific Evaluation of Mastoidectomy and the Global Evaluation of Mastoidectomy, were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: A mental practice script was successfully developed based on interviews of three expert surgeon-educators. Task Specific Evaluation and Global Evaluation scores increased in both the mental practice and textbook study groups; there was no significant difference between the two groups in the change in scores post-intervention. There was a high and statistically signficant correlation between evaluators on the outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: We were not able to demonstrate a significant difference for the benefits of mental practice in mastoidectomy, possibly due to the sample size. However, mental practice is a surgical education tool which is portable, accessible, inexpensive and safe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".