Ngan Nguyen

A Head in Virtual Reality: Development of A Dynamic Head and Neck Model

Advances in computer and interface technologies have made it possible to create three‐dimensional (3D) computerized models of anatomical structures for visualization, manipulation, and interaction in a virtual 3D environment. In the past few decades, a multitude of digital models have been developed to facilitate complex spatial learning of the human body. However, there is limited empirical evidence to guide the development and integration of effective computer models for teaching and learning. The purpose of this article is to describe the development of a dynamic head and neck model with flexible displays (2D, 3D, and stereoscopic 3D) and interactive control features that can be later used to design and test the efficacy of computer models as a means of improving student learning. The model was created using computer tomography scans of a human cadaver. Anatomical structures captured on the scans were segmented into discreet areas, and then reconstructed in three‐dimensions using specialized software. The final model consists of 70 distinct anatomical structures that can be displayed in 2D, 3D, or stereoscopic 3D. In 3D mode, a mouse can be used to actively and continuously interact with the model by manipulating viewer orientation, altering surface transparency, superimposing 2D scans with 3D reconstructions, removing or adding structures sequentially, and customizing animated scenes to show complex anatomical pathways or relationships. Anat Sci Educ 2: 294–301, 2009.

Visuospatial anatomy comprehension: The role of spatial visualization ability and problem-solving strategies

The present study explored the problem‐solving strategies of high‐ and low‐spatial visualization ability learners on a novel spatial anatomy task to determine whether differences in strategies contribute to differences in task performance. The results of this study provide further insights into the processing commonalities and differences among learners beyond the classification of spatial visualization ability alone, and help elucidate what, if anything, high‐ and low‐spatial visualization ability learners do differently while solving spatial anatomy task problems. Forty‐two students completed a standardized measure of spatial visualization ability, a novel spatial anatomy task, and a questionnaire involving personal self‐analysis of the processes and strategies used while performing the spatial anatomy task. Strategy reports revealed that there were different ways students approached answering the spatial anatomy task problems. However, chi‐square test analyses established that differences in problem‐solving strategies did not contribute to differences in task performance. Therefore, underlying spatial visualization ability is the main source of variation in spatial anatomy task performance, irrespective of strategy. In addition to scoring higher and spending less time on the anatomy task, participants with high spatial visualization ability were also more accurate when solving the task problems. Anat Sci Educ 7: 280–288.

Comparison of 3D reconstructive technologies used for morphometric research and the translation of knowledge using a decision matrix

The use of three‐dimensional (3D) models for education, pre‐operative assessment, presurgical planning, and measurement have become more prevalent. With the increase in prevalence of 3D models there has also been an increase in 3D reconstructive software programs that are used to create these models. These software programs differ in reconstruction concepts, operating system requirements, user features, cost, and no one program has emerged as the standard. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic comparison of three widely available 3D reconstructive software programs, Amira®, OsiriX, and Mimics®, with respect to the softwares ability to be used in two broad themes: morphometric research and education to translate morphological knowledge. Cost, system requirements, and inherent features of each program were compared. A novel concept selection tool, a decision matrix, was used to objectify comparisons of usability of the interface, quality of the output, and efficiency of the tools. Findings indicate that Mimics was the best‐suited program for construction of 3D anatomical models and morphometric analysis, but for creating a learning tool the results were less clear. OsiriX was very user‐friendly; however, it had limited capabilities. Conversely, although Amira had endless potential and could create complex dynamic videos, it had a challenging interface. These results provide a resource for morphometric researchers and educators to assist the selection of appropriate reconstruction programs when starting a new 3D modeling project. Anat Sci Educ 6: 393–403.