Advertisement

Integrating 3D Visualisation Technologies in Undergraduate Anatomy Education

  • Iain D. KeenanEmail author
  • Abdullah ben Awadh
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1120)

Abstract

Anatomy forms the basis of clinical examination, surgery and radiology and it is therefore essential that a fundamental understanding of the key concepts, structures and their relationships is gained by medical and healthcare students during their undergraduate training. Anatomy involves the study of three dimensional entities relating to the human body itself and its constituent structures. In our experience, the appreciation of 3D concepts is one of the most demanding areas for medical student learning of anatomy (ben Awadh et al. 2018, unpublished observations). The ability to interpret 3D anatomical features in 2D cross-sectional clinical images can be troublesome, while the dynamic nature of embryological development is a further challenge.

The aim of introducing technology enhanced-learning (TEL) approaches into our practice is with a view to enhancing undergraduate medical student learning of clinically relevant anatomy. Here we will explore the importance of visualisation and visual learning in anatomy as a scholarly basis for the integration for TEL approaches. We will then describe examples of visualisation technologies that are currently being implemented within the School of Medical Education at Newcastle University based on a research informed understanding of how students learn anatomy. We will consider the available evidence that supports best practice, identify limitations where they arise, and discuss how these visual 3D learning technologies can be effectively utilised as adjuncts and self-directed resources to supplement more established approaches to undergraduate anatomy education.

Keywords

Anatomy education Visual learning Visualisation table Autostereoscopy 3D printing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Prof Susan Lindsay, Dr Jill Clark and Dr Gavin Clowry as co-supervisors of the doctoral project of Abdullah ben Awadh. We would like to acknowledge Newcastle University Stage 4 MBBS student selected component project students Christien Li, Christopher Kui, Elgin Lee and Sze Yi Beh for their contribution to 3D printing projects and Dillukshen Muralitharan for contribution to an Alioscopy project. We would like to acknowledge previous Newcastle University vacation research students Jordan Ng Cheong Chung, Gokulan Suthermaraj and Megan Powell for their contribution to Sectra and clinical image interpretation projects. We would also like to acknowledge Sectra, Alioscopy and Raise3D for providing images and technical information.

References

  1. 3DSlicer (2018) 3D Slicer. https://www.slicer.org/. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  2. AbouHashem Y, Dayal M, Savanah S, Strkalj G (2015) The application of 3D printing in anatomy education. Med Educ Online 20:29847.  https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v20.29847 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Al Qahtani F, Abdelaziz A (2014) Integrating radiology vertically into an undergraduate medical education curriculum: a triphasic integration approach. Adv Med Educ Pract 5:185–189.  https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S58858 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Alioscopy (2018) How does it work? http://www.alioscopy.com/en/principles.php. Accessed 24 Sept 2018
  5. Backhouse M, Fitzpatrick M, Hutchinson J, Thandi CS, Keenan ID (2017) Improvements in anatomy knowledge when utilizing a novel cyclical “Observe-Reflect-Draw-Edit-Repeat” learning process. Anat Sci Educ 10:7–22.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1616 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bajka M, Manestar M, Hug J, Szekely G, Haller U, Groscurth P (2004) Detailed anatomy of the abdomen and pelvis of the visible human female. Clin Anat 17:252–260.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.10215 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardes CL, Gillers D, Herman AE (2001) Learning to look: developing clinical observational skills at an art museum. Med Educ 35:1157–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bassett DL (1954) A stereoscopic atlas of human anatomy, vol 2. Sawyer, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Beermann J et al (2010) Three-dimensional visualisation improves understanding of surgical liver anatomy. Med Educ 44:936–940.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03742.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett S, Maton K, Kervin L (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. Br J Educ Technol 39:775–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biasutto SN, Caussa LI, Criado Del Rio LE (2006) Teaching anatomy: cadavers vs. computers? Ann Anat 188:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blender (2018) Blender. https://www.blender.org/. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  13. Carroll JB (1993) Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapman SJ, Hakeem AR, Marangoni G, Prasad KR (2013) Anatomy in medical education: perceptions of undergraduate medical students. Ann Anat 195:409–414.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2013.03.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen S et al (2017) The role of three-dimensional printed models of skull in anatomy education: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep 7:575.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00647-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Choudhury B, Gouldsborough I, Gabriel S (2010) Use of interactive sessions and e-learning in teaching anatomy to first-year optometry students. Anat Sci Educ 3:39–45.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.123 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Christ R, Guevar J, Poyade M, Rea PM (2018) Proof of concept of a workflow methodology for the creation of basic canine head anatomy veterinary education tool using augmented reality. PLoS One 13:e0195866.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195866 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Clunie L, Morris NP, Joynes VCT, Pickering JD (2018) How comprehensive are research studies investigating the efficacy of technology-enhanced learning resources in anatomy education? A systematic review. Anat Sci Educ 11:303–319.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1762 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Coffield F, Moseley D, Hall E, Ecclestone K (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. de Bakker BS, de Jong KH, Hagoort J, Oostra RJ, Moorman AF (2012) Towards a 3-dimensional atlas of the developing human embryo: the Amsterdam experience. Reprod Toxicol 34:225–236Google Scholar
  21. de Barros N, Rodrigues CJ, Rodrigues AJ Jr, de Negri Germano MA, Cerri GG (2001) The value of teaching sectional anatomy to improve CT scan interpretation. Clin Anat 14:36–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2353(200101)14:1<36::aid-ca1006>3.0.co;2-g CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. de Faria JW, Teixeira MJ, de Moura Sousa Junior L, Otoch JP, Figueiredo EG (2016) Virtual and stereoscopic anatomy: when virtual reality meets medical education. J Neurosurg 125:1105–1111.  https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.8.jns141563 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Dekker S, Lee NC, Howard-Jones P, Jolles J (2012) Neuromyths in education: prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Front Psychol 3:429.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Dettmer S, Tschernig T, Galanski M, Pabst R, Rieck B (2010) Teaching surgery, radiology and anatomy together: the mix enhances motivation and comprehension. Surg Radiol Anat 32:791–795.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-010-0694-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Donnelly L, Patten D, White P, Finn G (2009) Virtual human dissector as a learning tool for studying cross-sectional anatomy. Med Teach 31:553–555.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802512953 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Dreon O, Kerper RM, Landis J (2011) Digital storytelling: a tool for teaching and learning in the YouTube generation. Middle Sch J 42:4–10.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2011.11461777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dzulkifli MA, Mustafar MF (2013) The influence of colour on memory performance: a review. Malays J Med Sci 20:3–9PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Eagleton S (2015) An exploration of the factors that contribute to learning satisfaction of first-year anatomy and physiology students. Adv Physiol Educ 39:158–166.  https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00040.2014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ejaz F et al (2014) Color-coded patient-specific physical models of congenital heart disease. Rapid Prototyp J 20:336–343.  https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-11-2012-0105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Erkonen WE, Albanese MA, Smith WL, Pantazis NJ (1992) Effectiveness of teaching radiologic image interpretation in gross anatomy. A long-term follow-up. Investig Radiol 27:264–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Estevez ME, Lindgren KA, Bergethon PR (2010) A novel three-dimensional tool for teaching human neuroanatomy. Anat Sci Educ 3:309–317.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.186 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Fang TY, Wang PC, Liu CH, Su MC, Yeh SC (2014) Evaluation of a haptics-based virtual reality temporal bone simulator for anatomy and surgery training. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 113:674–681.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Feilchenfeld Z, Dornan T, Whitehead C, Kuper A (2017) Ultrasound in undergraduate medical education: a systematic and critical review. Med Educ 51(4).  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13211
  34. Feng JY, Chang YT, Chang HY, Erdley WS, Lin CH, Chang YJ (2013) Systematic review of effectiveness of situated e-learning on medical and nursing education. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs 10:174–183.  https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Fernandez R, Dror IE, Smith C (2011) Spatial abilities of expert clinical anatomists: comparison of abilities between novices, intermediates, and experts in anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 4:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.196 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Finn GM, White PM, Abdelbagi I (2011) The impact of color and role on retention of knowledge: a body-painting study within undergraduate medicine. Anat Sci Educ 4:311–317.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.253 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Fleming ND, Mills C (1992) Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. Improve Acad 11:137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fogg QA (2007) The virtual human dissector by touch of life technologies and University of Colorado, www.toltech.net. Clin Anat 20:226–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Foster N (2011) Analysis of short-answer question styles versus gender in pre-clinical veterinary education. J Vet Med Educ 38:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:8410–8415.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L (2001) How medical students learn spatial anatomy. Lancet 357:363–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. General Medical Council (2009) Tomorrow’s doctors: an improvement if evaluated. Lancet 374:851–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Geng J (2013) Three-dimensional display technologies. Adv Opt Photon 5:456–535.  https://doi.org/10.1364/AOP.5.000456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gikas J, Grant MM (2013) Mobile computing devices in higher education: student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet High Educ 19:18–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Granger NA (2004) Dissection laboratory is vital to medical gross anatomy education. Anat Rec B New Anat 281:6–8.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.b.20039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Greenhow C, Robelia B, Hughes JE (2009) Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now? Educ Res 38:246–259.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09336671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Guillot A, Champely S, Batier C, Thiriet P, Collet C (2007) Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Adv Health Sci Educ 12:491–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gunderman RB, Stephens CD (2009) Teaching medical students about imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:859–861.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.08.1738 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hall E (2016) The tenacity of learning styles: a response to Lodge, Hansen, and Cottrell. Learn Res Pract 2:18–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2016.1139856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hamilton J, Carachi R (2014) Clinical embryology: is there still a place in medical schools today? Scott Med J 59:188–192.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0036933014550953 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Hanna MG, Ahmed I, Nine J, Prajapati S, Pantanowitz L (2018) Augmented reality technology using Microsoft HoloLens in anatomic pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 142:638–644.  https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2017-0189-OA CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Hoyek N, Collet C, Di Rienzo F, De Almeida M, Guillot A (2014) Effectiveness of three-dimensional digital animation in teaching human anatomy in an authentic classroom context. Anat Sci Educ 7:430–437.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1446 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Hu M, Wattchow D, de Fontgalland D (2018) From ancient to avant-garde: a review of traditional and modern multimodal approaches to surgical anatomy education. ANZ J Surg 88:146–151.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14189 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Jasani SK, Saks NS (2013) Utilizing visual art to enhance the clinical observation skills of medical students. Med Teach 35:e1327–e1331.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2013.770131 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Jones MG, Minogue J, Tretter TR, Negishi A, Taylor R (2006) Haptic augmentation of science instruction: does touch matter? Sci Educ 90:111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jurgaitis J et al (2008) The comparison of 2-dimensional with 3-dimensional hepatic visualization in the clinical hepatic anatomy education. Medicina (Kaunas) 44:428–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Keedy AW, Durack JC, Sandhu P, Chen EM, O’Sullivan PS, Breiman RS (2011) Comparison of traditional methods with 3D computer models in the instruction of hepatobiliary anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 4:84–91.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.212 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Keenan I, Jennings B (2017) Concluding commentary. Life sciences in an integrated medical curriculum: continuing the conversation. MedEdPublish 6:52.  https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2017.000114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Keenan ID, Solim ZN, Quigg S, Kerwin J, Lindsay S (2016) Enhancing student learning of human embryology with a prototype e-learning resource. In: Anatomical Society winter meeting 2016, King’s College London, London. Journal of Anatomy, vol 3, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12637
  61. Kelly S, Dennick R (2009) Evidence of gender bias in True-False-Abstain medical examinations. BMC Med Educ 9:32.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-32 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Khan N, Coppola W, Rayne T, Epstein O (2009) Medical student access to multimedia devices: most have it, some don’t and what’s next? Inform Health Soc Care 34:100–105.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17538150902779550 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Kong X et al (2016) Do 3D printing models improve anatomical teaching about hepatic segments to medical students? A randomized controlled study. World J Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3541-y
  64. Kucuk S, Kapakin S, Goktas Y (2016) Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: effects on achievement and cognitive load. Anat Sci Educ 9:411–421.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1603 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Kugelmann D et al (2018) An augmented reality magic mirror as additive teaching device for gross anatomy. Anna Anat 215:71–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2017.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Langlois J, Wells GA, Lecourtois M, Bergeron G, Yetisir E, Martin M (2013) Sex differences in spatial abilities of medical graduates entering residency programs. Anat Sci Educ 6:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Langlois J, Wells GA, Lecourtois M, Bergeron G, Yetisir E, Martin M (2015) Spatial abilities of medical graduates and choice of residency programs. Anat Sci Educ 8:111–119.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1453 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Levinson AJ, Weaver B, Garside S, McGinn H, Norman GR (2007) Virtual reality and brain anatomy: a randomised trial of e-learning instructional designs. Med Educ 41:495–501.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02694.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Li Z et al (2015) Three-dimensional printing models improve understanding of spinal fracture—a randomized controlled study in China. Sci Rep 5:11570.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11570. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep11570#supplementary-information CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Li K et al (2017) The role of 3D printing in anatomy education and surgical training: a narrative review. MedEdPublish 6.  https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2017.000092
  71. Lim KH, Loo ZY, Goldie SJ, Adams JW, McMenamin PG (2016) Use of 3D printed models in medical education: a randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 9:213–221.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1573 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Linn MC, Petersen AC (1985) Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev 56(6):1479–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lodge JM, Hansen L, Cottrell D (2016) Modality preference and learning style theories: rethinking the role of sensory modality in learning. Learn Res Pract 2:4–17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2015.1083115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lufler RS, Zumwalt AC, Romney CA, Hoagland TM (2012) Effect of visual-spatial ability on medical students’ performance in a gross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 5:3–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.264 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Ma M, Fallavollita P, Seelbach I, Von Der Heide AM, Euler E, Waschke J, Navab N (2016) Personalized augmented reality for anatomy education. Clin Anat 29:446–453.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22675 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Maragiannis D et al (2015) Replicating patient-specific severe aortic valve stenosis with functional 3D modeling. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 8:e003626.  https://doi.org/10.1161/circimaging.115.003626 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Masters MS, Sanders B (1993) Is the gender difference in mental rotation disappearing? Behav Genet 23:337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. May H, Cohen H, Medlej B, Kornreich L, Peled N, Hershkovitz I (2013) Computed tomography-enhanced anatomy course using enterprise visualization. Anat Sci Educ 6:332–341.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1340 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. McLachlan JC (2004) New path for teaching anatomy: living anatomy and medical imaging vs. dissection. Anat Rec B New Anat 281:4–5.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.b.20040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. McMenamin PG, Quayle MR, McHenry CR, Adams JW (2014) The production of anatomical teaching resources using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology. Anat Sci Educ 7:479–486.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1475 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Meshmixer (2018) Autodesk Meshmixer. http://www.meshmixer.com/. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  82. Microsoft (2018) HoloLens. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/why-hololens. Accessed 24 Sept 2018
  83. Miles KA (2005) Diagnostic imaging in undergraduate medical education: an expanding role. Clin Radiol 60:742–745.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2005.02.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Miller M (2016) Use of computer-aided holographic models improves performance in a cadaver dissection-based course in gross anatomy. Clin Anat 29:917–924.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22766 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Moore CM, Lowe C, Lawrence J, Borchers P (2011) Developing observational skills and knowledge of anatomical relationships in an art and anatomy workshop using plastinated specimens. Anat Sci Educ 4:294–301.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.244 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Moore CW, Wilson TD, Rice CL (2017) Digital preservation of anatomical variation: 3D-modeling of embalmed and plastinated cadaveric specimens using uCT and MRI. Ann Anat 209:69–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2016.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Murad MH, Varkey P (2008) Self-directed learning in health professions education. Ann Acad Med Singap 37:580–590PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Murad MH, Coto-Yglesias F, Varkey P, Prokop LJ, Murad AL (2010) The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review. Med Educ 44:1057–1068.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03750.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Naghshineh S et al (2008) Formal art observation training improves medical students’ visual diagnostic skills. J Gen Intern Med 23:991–997.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0667-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. Nguyen N, Nelson A, Wilson T (2012) Computer visualizations: factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension. Anat Sci Educ 5:98–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Nguyen N, Mulla A, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD (2014) Visuospatial anatomy comprehension: the role of spatial visualization ability and problem-solving strategies. Anat Sci Educ 7:280–288.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1415 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Nieder GL, Nagy F, Wagner LA (2004) Preserving and sharing examples of anatomical variation and developmental anomalies via photorealistic virtual reality. Anat Rec B New Anat 276:15–18.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.b.20001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Nyhsen CM, Lawson C, Higginson J (2011) Radiology teaching for junior doctors: their expectations, preferences and suggestions for improvement. Insights Imaging 2:261–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-010-0052-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Nyhsen CM, Steinberg LJ, O’Connell JE (2013) Undergraduate radiology teaching from the student’s perspective. Insights Imaging 4:103–109.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0206-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. O’Reilly MK, Reese S, Herlihy T, Geoghegan T, Cantwell CP, Feeney RN, Jones JF (2016) Fabrication and assessment of 3D printed anatomical models of the lower limb for anatomical teaching and femoral vessel access training in medicine. Anat Sci Educ 9:71–79.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1538 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Pabst R, Westermann J, Lippert H (1986) Integration of clinical problems in teaching gross anatomy: living anatomy, X-ray anatomy, patient presentations, and films depicting clinical problems. Anat Rec 215:92–94.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.1092150114 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Palombi O, Pihuit A, Cani MP (2011) 3D modeling of branching vessels from anatomical sketches: towards a new interactive teaching of anatomy: interactive virtual blackboard. Surg Radiol Anat 33:631–636.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-011-0827-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Pandey P, Zimitat C (2007) Medical students’ learning of anatomy: memorisation, understanding and visualisation. Med Educ 41:7–14.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02643.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R (2008) Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Public Interest 9:105–119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Pellico LH, Friedlaender L, Fennie KP (2009) Looking is not seeing: using art to improve observational skills. J Nurs Educ 48:648–653.  https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20090828-02 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Pickering JD, Swinnerton BJ (2018) Exploring the dimensions of medical student engagement with technology-enhanced learning resources and assessing the impact on assessment outcomes. Anat Sci Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1810
  102. Pickering JD, Henningsohn L, Deruiter MC, de Jong PGM, Reinders MEJ (2017) Twelve tips for developing and delivering a massive open online course in medical education. Med Teach 39:691–696.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2017.1322189 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Ponce LB, Méndez JAJ, Peñalvo FJG (2014) A systematic review of using mobile devices in medical education. In: 2014 International symposium on computers in education (SIIE), 12–14 Nov 2014, pp 205–210.  https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE.2014.7017731
  104. Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. Horizon 9:1–6Google Scholar
  105. Preece D, Williams SB, Lam R, Weller R (2013) “Let’s get physical”: advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anat Sci Educ 6:216–224Google Scholar
  106. Raise3D (2018) Raise 3D. https://www.raise3d.com/. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
  107. Reid S, Shapiro L, Louw G (2018) How haptics and drawing enhance the learning of anatomy. Anat Sci Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1807
  108. Rochford K (1985) Spatial learning disabilities and underachievement among university anatomy students. Med Educ 19:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Rohrer D, Pashler H (2012) Learning styles: where’s the evidence? Med Educ 46:634–635.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04273.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Royal College of Radiologists (2016) Undergraduate radiology. Royal College of Radiologists. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/ursa
  111. Schutte AF (2016) Who is repeating anatomy? Trends in an undergraduate anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ 9:171–178.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1553 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Sectra (2018a) Sectra Terminals. https://sectra.com/medical/product/sectra-terminals/. Accessed 21 Sept 2018
  113. Sectra (2018b) Sectra Education Portal. https://sectra.com/medical/product/sectra-education-portal/. Accessed 27 Sept 2018
  114. Selwyn N (2009) The digital native – myth and reality. ASLIB Proc 61:364–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Shapiro J, Rucker L, Beck J (2006) Training the clinical eye and mind: using the arts to develop medical students’ observational and pattern recognition skills. Med Educ 40:263–268.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02389.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Slater CE, Cusick A (2017) Factors related to self-directed learning readiness of students in health professional programs: a scoping review. Nurse Educ Today 52:28–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.02.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. Slon V, Hershkovitz I, May H (2014) The value of cadaver CT scans in gross anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ 7:80–82.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1400 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Smith CF, Tollemache N, Covill D, Johnston M (2018) Take away body parts! An investigation into the use of 3D-printed anatomical models in undergraduate anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ 11:44–53.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1718 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB (2008) Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 27:1491–1502.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A (2010) The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ 3:83–93.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.139 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Sweeney K, Hayes JA, Chiavaroli N (2014) Does spatial ability help the learning of anatomy in a biomedical science course? Anat Sci Educ 7:289–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Swinnerton BJ, Morris NP, Hotchkiss S, Pickering JD (2017) The integration of an anatomy massive open online course (MOOC) into a medical anatomy curriculum. Anat Sci Educ 10:53–67.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1625 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Trelease RB (1998) The virtual anatomy practical: a stereoscopic 3D interactive multimedia computer examination program. Clin Anat 11:89–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2353(1998)11:2<89::aid-ca4>3.0.co;2-n CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Turchini J, Buckland ME, Gill AJ, Battye S (2018) Three-dimensional pathology specimen modeling using “structure-from-motion” photogrammetry: a powerful new tool for surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med.  https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2017-0145-OA
  125. Van Nuland SE, Rogers KA (2015a) The anatomy of E-learning tools: does software usability influence learning outcomes? Anat Sci Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1589
  126. Van Nuland SE, Rogers KA (2015b) E-learning, dual-task, and cognitive load: the anatomy of a failed experiment. Anat Sci Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1576
  127. Vorstenbosch MA, Klaassen TP, Donders AR, Kooloos JG, Bolhuis SM, Laan RF (2013) Learning anatomy enhances spatial ability. Anat Sci Educ 6:257–262.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1346 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Ward PJ, Walker JJ (2008) The influence of study methods and knowledge processing on academic success and long-term recall of anatomy learning by first-year veterinary students. Anat Sci Educ 1:68–74.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.12 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. Ward TM, Wertz CI, Mickelsen W (2018) Anatomage table enhances radiologic technology education. Radiol Technol 89:304–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Webb AL, Choi S (2014) Interactive radiological anatomy eLearning solution for first year medical students: development, integration, and impact on learning. Anat Sci Educ 7:350–360.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1428 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. Werner H, dos Santos JR, Fontes R, Daltro P, Gasparetto E, Marchiori E, Campbell S (2010) Additive manufacturing models of fetuses built from three-dimensional ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography scan data. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Wilson AB et al (2018) A meta-analysis of anatomy laboratory pedagogies. Clin Anat 31:122–133.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.22934 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. World Health Organization (2016) Diagnostic imaging. World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/diagnostic_imaging/en/. Accessed 3 Oct 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Medical EducationNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations