Abstract
Advances in computer visualization enabling both 2D and 3D representation have generated tools to aid perception of spatial relationships and provide a new forum for instructional design. A key knowledge gap is the lack of understanding of how the brain neurobiologically processes and learns from spatially presented content, and new quantitative variables are required to address this gap. The objective of this study was to apply quantitative neural measures derived from electroencephalography (EEG) to examine stereopsis in anatomy learning by comparing mean amplitude changes in N250 (related to object recognition) and reward positivity (related to responding to feedback) event related to potential components using a reinforcement-based learning paradigm. Health sciences students (n = 61) learned to identify and localize neuroanatomical structures using 2D, 3D, or a combination of models while EEG and behavioral (accuracy) data were recorded. Participants learning using 3D models had a greater object recognition (N250 amplitude) compared to those who learned from 2D models. Based on neurological results, interleaved learning incorporating both 2D and 3D models provided an advantage in learning, retention, and transfer activities represented by decreased reward positivity amplitude. Behavioral data did not have the same sensitivity as neural data for distinguishing differences in learning with and without stereopsis in these learning activities. Measuring neural activity reveals new insights in applied settings for educators to consider when incorporating stereoscopic models in the design of learning interventions.
Highlights
Advances in computer visualization enabling both 2D and 3D anatomical representations have generated tools to aid perception of spatial relationships and provide a new forum for instructional design.[1,2] To date, studies examining the effectiveness of these educational tools have been comparative, using performance measurements as proxy variables for learning.[3,4] many of these studies have not been designed to allow for direct comparisons across conditions since implementation of substantially different instructional methods across conditions confounds findings.[5]
The purpose of this study was to examine stereopsis in anatomy learning by comparing changes in the amplitude of the N250 and reward positivity Event related potentials (ERP) components, measured using a Stated otherwise, greater N250 activity is correlated with heightened visual perception skills
The objective of this study was to examine stereopsis in anatomy learning by comparing changes in the amplitude of the N250 and reward positivity ERP components measured in a reinforcement-based learning paradigm
Summary
Advances in computer visualization enabling both 2D and 3D anatomical representations have generated tools to aid perception of spatial relationships and provide a new forum for instructional design.[1,2] To date, studies examining the effectiveness of these educational tools have been comparative, using performance measurements as proxy variables for learning.[3,4] many of these studies have not been designed to allow for direct comparisons across conditions since implementation of substantially different instructional methods across conditions confounds findings.[5]. Monocular cues require only one eye to perceive depth and include cues such as relative size of objects, occlusion, shading, and motion parallax (objects moving at different speeds based on depth).[10] that advances in stereoscopic 3D display technology permit understanding of depth through both monocular and binocular cues, a reexamination of these paradigms is pertinent.[11] Stereoscopic displays take advantage of humans’ binocular visual system by presenting two images from slightly different views, called “stereo pairs”, to the right and left eyes such that the brain interprets the images as one scene and assigns depth (stereopsis).[9] Research in other disciplines has revealed that stereoscopic displays are more beneficial when comparing distances, locating or identifying objects, spatially manipulating objects, and navigating.[12] a recent study by Wainman et al in anatomy education compared physical models to match 3D models (projected on a 2D display) to isolate why physical models seem to be superior to computer-based models.[13] They were able to rule out effects due to learning vs testing environments as well as the added haptic feedback derived from the ability to touch a physical model as causal factors for superiority. We predicted that as participants learned to identify and localize anatomical structures, (a) N250 amplitude would increase and remain elevated during retention exercises, demonstrating heightened visual perception skills, (b) N250 amplitude would be greater when participants viewed 3D compared to 2D models, given the additional depth cue to facilitate increased object recognition, and N250 amplitude of participants viewing both 2D and 3D models would be similar to that of those viewing 3D models due to exposure to additional depth cues provided through the 3D trials, (c) reward positivity amplitude would decrease as ability to internally evaluate the correctness of responses improved and amplitude would remain diminished with successful retention, (d) learning from 3D models would enable more efficient learning compared to 2D and result in an earlier downward shift of the reward positivity amplitude, and (e) learning from both 2D and 3D models as an interleaved approach will improve long term retention and result in lower reward positivity amplitude during retention tests in this group compared to the 2D and 3D groups
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
