INTRODUCTIONMedical schools have traditionally used a dissection‐based approach for educating students in neuroanatomy. There is a trend towards increased use of prosected specimens, models, and 3‐D imaging materials as learning resources. It is not known which method constitutes the most effective way to teach students a basic understanding of human neuroanatomy. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the method of educational delivery influences student perceptions about learning anatomy, as well as performance on a practical exam.METHODSUndergraduate students from the same medical school were compared. One cohort was taught using a method that involved some dissection of brain specimens while the the second cohort was taught using a method of delivery that employed more prosected specimens. Contact hours for both groups were similar. A standardized educational survey was used to collect information regarding student perceptions and evaluate 6 different methods of delivery. This data was compared against student performance on neuroanatomy practical exams.SUMMARYSeventy students (dissection=40, prosection=30) completed the survey. Survey results revealed that teaching that used clinical cases was the most effective approach for relating anatomical structure to function, while the use of medical imaging was the most effective approach for instilling anatomical knowledge. When comparing the performance of students on the lab practical exam, the dissection group outperformed the prosection group (mean=83% vs 72%). The dissection group also outperformed the prosection group on exam questions that were given to both groups (mean=80% vs 76%).CONCLUSIONSData suggest that student perceptions and academic performance are influenced by the method of delivery, and that medical imaging and case based scenarios enhance the learning environment. The results will be used to guide the selection of delivery method in future neuroanatomy curriculum.Support or Funding InformationFunding provided by the Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund of the University of Manitoba.