The DOI matches its Crossref record.
“Let's Get Physical”: Advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy
Open accessAbstract
Three‐dimensional (3D) information plays an important part in medical and veterinary education. Appreciating complex 3D spatial relationships requires a strong foundational understanding of anatomy and mental 3D visualization skills. Novel learning resources have been introduced to anatomy training to achieve this. Objective evaluation of their comparative efficacies remains scarce in the literature. This study developed and evaluated the use of a physical model in demonstrating the complex spatial relationships of the equine foot. It was hypothesized that the newly developed physical model would be more effective for students to learn magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) anatomy of the foot than textbooks or computer‐based 3D models. Third year veterinary medicine students were randomly assigned to one of three teaching aid groups (physical model; textbooks; 3D computer model). The comparative efficacies of the three teaching aids were assessed through students' abilities to identify anatomical structures on MR images. Overall mean MRI assessment scores were significantly higher in students utilizing the physical model (86.39%) compared with students using textbooks (62.61%) and the 3D computer model (63.68%) (P < 0.001), with no significant difference between the textbook and 3D computer model groups (P = 0.685). Student feedback was also more positive in the physical model group compared with both the textbook and 3D computer model groups. Our results suggest that physical models may hold a significant advantage over alternative learning resources in enhancing visuospatial and 3D understanding of complex anatomical architecture, and that 3D computer models have significant limitations with regards to 3D learning. Anat Sci Educ 6: 216–224. © 2013 American Association of Anatomists.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The production of anatomical teaching resources using three‐dimensional (3D) printing technology
McMenamin, P. G., Quayle, M. R., McHenry, C. R., & Adams, J. W. (2014) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1475 · Cited by 698
Lim, K. H. A., Loo, Z. Y., Goldie, S. J., Adams, J. W., & McMenamin, P. G. (2016) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1573 · Cited by 494
Tang, Y. M., Chau, K. Y., Kwok, A. P. K., Zhu, T., & Ma, X. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100429 · Cited by 281
The relative effectiveness of computer‐based and traditional resources for education in anatomy
Khot, Z., Quinlan, K., Norman, G. R., & Wainman, B. (2013) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1355 · Cited by 274
Dimensional Accuracy in 3D Printed Medical Models: A Follow-Up Study on SLA and SLS Technology
Msallem, B., Vavrina, J. J., Beyer, M., Halbeisen, F. S., Lauer, G., Dragu, A., & Thieringer, F. M. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm13195848 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Preece, D., Williams, S. B., Lam, R., & Weller, R.
- Venue
- Anatomical Sciences Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-01-24
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 216-224
- ISSN
- 1935-9772 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-9780
- OpenAlex
- W1514232537
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Let's Get Physical”: Advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ase.1345
- The paper
- Preece, D., Williams, S. B., Lam, R., & Weller, R. (2013). “Let's Get Physical”: Advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1345
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.