What type of study is this?

September 23, 2025Open Access

Bridging Technology and Tradition: Student Outcomes with Virtual Dissection Table versus Cadaveric Dissection in Neuroanatomy Learning

USUrmila SinhaAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar RRRuchi RatneshAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar APAjay Kumar PatelIndiana University Bloomington

Key Points

The virtual dissection table significantly improved posttest scores in neuroanatomy learning, achieving an increase to 74.5 ± 5.3 compared to the cadaver group.
More than 86% of students using the VDT reported better understanding of spatial concepts, highlighting its educational advantages over cadaver dissection.
Students in the traditional cadaver group emphasized the value of tactile experience, with 92% finding it useful for appreciating anatomical structures.
Combining innovative approaches like VDT with traditional methods can enhance neuroanatomy teaching, paving the way for improved educational strategies.

Abstract

A BSTRACT Background: The virtual dissection table (VDT) was developed to support or replace cadaver dissection (CDS) in anatomy education, driven by advancements in digital education. Neuroanatomy is a challenging subject for learners due to its spatial complexity. This study investigates the effectiveness of VDT and CDS in facilitating medical students’ understanding of the brain’s structure. Materials and Methods: Fifty medical students were randomly put into each of the two groups. Group A used the VDT (Anatomage table) for their neuroanatomy lessons, and Group B was given traditional cadaveric dissection instruction. All students attended the same educational talks. Both before and after treatment, assessments included multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and tasks that required identifying objects in images. Students answered questions on a five-point Likert scale. Results: The scores on the posttest improved a lot in both groups. Group A (VDT) went from 48.2 ± 6.1 to 74.5 ± 5.3, and Group B (CD) changed from 46.9 ± 7.4 to 71.3 ± 6.8. The VDT group performed better in the posttest ( P < 0.05) than the other group. More than 86% of those who use AVDT said they understood spatial concepts better, but 92% of the cadaveric users highlighted the usefulness of touching tissue. Students in the AVDT group gave slightly higher feedback than those in the CD group (mean Likert score of 4.3 for AVDT and 4.0 for CD). Conclusion: While both methods were useful for learning neuroanatomy, the VDT (Anatomage table) provided a better spatial picture and engagement. Neuroanatomy results can be improved by combining new and traditional teaching methods.

AI से पूछें

Bookmark

View Full Paper