Technology enhanced neuroanatomy teaching techniques: A focused BEME systematic review of current evidence: BEME Guide No. 75

References

• Alexander B, Ashford-Rowe K, Barajas-Murph N, Dobbin G, Knott J, McCormack M, Pomerantz J, Seilhamer R, Weber N. 2019. EDUCAUSE horizon report 2019 higher education edition. EDU19.
   Google Scholar
• Arantes M, Arantes J, Ferreira M. 2018. Tools and resources for neuroanatomy education: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 18(1):94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernard F, Richard P, Kahn A, Fournier H-D. 2020. Does 3D stereoscopy support anatomical education? Surg Radiol Anat. 42(7):843–852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bujak KR, Radu I, Catrambone R, MacIntyre B, Zheng R, Golubski G. 2013. A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Comput Educ. 68:536–544.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colthart I, Bagnall G, Evans A, Allbutt H, Haig A, Illing J, McKinstry B. 2008. The effectiveness of self-assessment on the identification of learner needs, learner activity, and impact on clinical practice: BEME Guide no. 10. Med Teach. 30(2):124–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. 2008. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 42(2):128–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig S, Tait N, Boers D, McAndrew D. 2010. Review of anatomy education in Australian and New Zealand medical schools. ANZ J Surg. 80(4):212–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cui D, Wilson TD, Rockhold RW, Lehman MN, Lynch JC. 2017. Evaluation of the effectiveness of 3D vascular stereoscopic models in anatomy instruction for first year medical students. Anat Sci Educ. 10(1):34–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Faria JWV, Teixeira MJ, Júnior LMS, Otoch JP, Figueiredo EG. 2016. Virtual and stereoscopic anatomy: when virtual reality meets medical education. J Neurosurg. 125(5):1105–1111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekstrand C, Jamal A, Nguyen R, Kudryk A, Mann J, Mendez I. 2018. Immersive and interactive virtual reality to improve learning and retention of neuroanatomy in medical students: a randomized controlled study. CMAJ Open. 6(1):E103–E109.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ertelt A. 2007. On-screen videos as an effective learning tool. The effect of instructional design variants and practice on learning achievements, retention, transfer and motivation dissertationsschrift. Baden-Württemberg, Germany: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.
   Google Scholar
• Estevez ME, Lindgren KA, Bergethon PR. 2010. A novel three‐dimensional tool for teaching human neuroanatomy. Anat Sci Ed. 3(6):309–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferdig R, Blank J, Kratcoski A, Clements R. 2015. Using stereoscopy to teach complex biological concepts. Adv Physiol Educ. 39(3):205–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giles J. 2010. Clinical neuroscience attachments: a student's view of ‘neurophobia’. Clin Teach. 7(1):9–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goodarzi A, Monti S, Lee D, Girgis F. 2017. Effect of stereoscopic anaglyphic 3-dimensional video didactics on learning neuroanatomy. World Neurosurg. 107:35–39.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon M, Grafton-Clarke C, Hill E, Gurbutt D, Patricio M, Daniel M. 2019. Twelve tips for undertaking a focused systematic review in medical education. Med Teach. 41(11):1232–1238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Held RT, Hui TT. 2011. A guide to stereoscopic 3D displays in medicine. Acad Radiol. 18(8):1035–1048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henn JS, Lemole GM, Jr Ferreira MA, Gonzalez LF, Schornak M, Preul MC, Spetzler RF. 2002. Interactive stereoscopic virtual reality: a new tool for neurosurgical education. Technical note. J Neurosurg. 96(1):144–149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henssen DJHA, Heuvel L, Jong GD, Vorstenbosch MATM, Walsum A-M, Hurk MMVd, Kooloos JGM, Bartels RHMA. 2020. Neuroanatomy learning: augmented reality vs. cross-sections. Anat Sci Educ. 13(3):353–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savović J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, et al., 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 343(2):d5928–d5928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilbelink AJ. 2009. A measure of the effectiveness of incorporating 3D human anatomy into an online undergraduate laboratory. Br J Educ Technol. 40(4):664–672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmberg B. 1986. Growth and structure of distance education.
   Google Scholar
• Stepan K, Zeiger J, Hanchuk S, Del Signore A, Shrivastava R, Govindaraj S, Iloreta A. 2017. Immersive virtual reality as a teaching tool for neuroanatomy. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 7(10):1006–1013.
   Google Scholar
• Jozefowicz RF. 1994. Neurophobia: the fear of neurology among medical students. Arch Neurol. 51(4):328–329.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kamphuis C, Barsom E, Schijven M, Christoph N. 2014. Augmented reality in medical education? Perspect Med Educ. 3(4):300–311.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kockro RA, Amaxopoulou C, Killeen T, Wagner W, Reisch R, Schwandt E, Gutenberg A, Giese A, Stofft E, Stadie AT. 2015. Stereoscopic neuroanatomy lectures using a three-dimensional virtual reality environment. Ann Anat-Anatomisch Anzeiger. 201:91–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Küçük S, Kapakin S, Göktaş Y. 2016. Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: effects on achievement and cognitive load. Anat Sci Educ. 9(5):411–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 33(1):159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(5):495–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowe RK. 2003. Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learn Inst. 13(2):157–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer RE, Fiorella L. 2014. 12 principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer RE, Johnson CI. 2008. Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol. 100(2):380–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeown P, Heylings D, Stevenson M, McKelvey K, Nixon JR, McCluskey D. 2003. The impact of curricular change on medical students’ knowledge of anatomy. Med Educ. 37(11):954–961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(6):479–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer AJ, Stomski NJ, Losco CD, Armson AJ. 2016. The influence of anatomy app use on chiropractic students’ learning outcomes: a randomised controlled trial. Chiropr Man Therap. 24(1):1–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moore MG. 1989. Three types of interaction. New York (NY): Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6(7):e1000097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moro C, Štromberga Z, Raikos A, Stirling A. 2017. The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 10(6):549–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moxham B, McHanwell S, Plaisant O, Pais D. 2015. A core syllabus for the teaching of neuroanatomy to medical students. Clin Anat. 28(6):706–716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schon F, Hart P, Fernandez C. 2002. Is clinical neurology really so difficult. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 72: 557–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman H, Meyer AJ, Carr S, Pather N, Wilkinson TJ. 2020. Comparative analysis of modern neuroanatomy teaching techniques: a BEME systematic review Protocol. Best Evidence Medical Education.
   Google Scholar
• Prince KJ, Scherpbier AJ, Van Mameren H, Drukker J, Van Der Vleuten CP. 2005. Do students have sufficient knowledge of clinical anatomy? Med Educ. 39(3):326–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proffitt DR, Kaiser MK, Whelan SM. 1990. Understanding wheel dynamics. Cogn Psychol. 22(3):342–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. 2018. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 126(5):1763–1768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepard RN, Metzler J. 1971. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science. 171(3972):701–703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorenson J, Khan N, Couldwell W, Robertson J. 2016. The rhoton collection. World Neurosurg. 92:649–652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotgiu MA, Mazzarello V, Bandiera P, Madeddu R, Montella A, Moxham B. 2020. Neuroanatomy, the Achille’s heel of medical students. A systematic analysis of educational strategies for the teaching of neuroanatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 13(1):107–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller J. 2011. Cognitive load theory. Psychology of learning and motivation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; p. 37–76.
   Google Scholar
• Wang C, Daniel BK, Asil M, Khwaounjoo P, Cakmak YO. 2020. A randomised control trial and comparative analysis of multi-dimensional learning tools in anatomy. Sci Rep. 10(1):1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterston SW, Stewart IJ. 2005. Survey of clinicians’ attitudes to the anatomical teaching and knowledge of medical students. Clin Anat. 18(5):380–384.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wismer A, Reinerman-Jones L, Teo G, Willis S, McCracken K, Hackett M. 2018. Assessing performance and usability of 3D visualization technologies for anatomical training. MODSIM World. 17:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Wu HK, Lee SWY, Chang HY, Liang JC. 2013. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Comput Educ. 62:41–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuen SCY, Yaoyuneyong G, Johnson E. 2011. Augmented reality: An overview and five directions for AR in education. J Educ Technol Dev Exchange. 4(1):11.
   Google Scholar
• Zinchuk AV, Flanagan EP, Tubridy NJ, Miller WA, McCullough LD. 2010. Attitudes of US medical trainees towards neurology education: “Neurophobia” - a global issue. BMC Med Educ. 10(1):49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar