FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2024; 14(15); 2171; doi: 10.3390/ani14152171

Effects of 3D Scans on Veterinary Students’ Learning Outcomes Compared to Traditional 2D Images in Anatomy Classes.

Abstract: Students often struggle with interpreting traditional textbook images and translating them to anatomical structures. This study aimed to compare the impact of 3D scans versus 2D images on students' learning outcomes when learning anatomical structures on skulls from horses and pigs. Furthermore, the correlation between spatial ability and learning outcomes using 3D scans or 2D images was examined. Second-year veterinary medicine students either used 3D scans or 2D images, annotated with arrows or numbers as learning material. Students' anatomical knowledge was tested before and after the learning session, and spatial ability was assessed using the mental rotation test. All groups improved significantly in the post-test. However, the differences between groups were not significant, suggesting that 3D scans do not necessarily lead to higher learning outcomes. The analysis of the correlation between spatial ability and learning outcomes did not prove that students with weaker spatial ability benefit from 3D scans. Students preferred 3D scans over 2D images despite similar outcomes, suggesting they are valuable for learning. However, results show that the introduction of novel learning materials likely amplified the impact of reduced learning time on the 3D group, as these materials necessitated additional time for effective comprehension and integration.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-07-25 PubMed ID: 39123697PubMed Central: PMC11311044DOI: 10.3390/ani14152171Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study compared 3D anatomical skull scans with traditional 2D images for veterinary students and found that while all students learned, 3D did not produce higher test scores than 2D in a short session. Students still preferred 3D, but the novelty and required orientation likely reduced effective study time, offsetting potential benefits.

What the researchers asked and why it matters

  • Question: Does studying with interactive 3D scans improve anatomy learning more than studying with traditional 2D images, and does spatial ability change who benefits?
  • Motivation: Students often find it hard to translate flat pictures into real 3D anatomy; 3D tools might bridge this gap, but they also introduce new demands on time and attention.

Study design and methods

  • Participants: Second-year veterinary medicine students in an anatomy class.
  • Materials: Horse and pig skulls represented as either interactive 3D scans or static 2D images.
  • Annotations: Learning materials were labeled using either arrows or numbers to cue structures, producing four conditions (3D–arrows, 3D–numbers, 2D–arrows, 2D–numbers).
  • Procedure:
    • Pre-test: Assessed baseline anatomical knowledge.
    • Learning session: Students studied with their assigned material (3D or 2D, with arrows or numbers).
    • Post-test: Assessed learning gains on anatomical identification/knowledge.
    • Spatial ability: Measured with a mental rotation test (MRT) to see whether spatial skill moderated outcomes.
    • Preferences: Students reported which format they preferred.
  • Timing context: The 3D format was novel to students; orienting to the tool likely consumed part of the fixed study time.

Main findings

  • Learning gains: All groups improved significantly from pre- to post-test.
  • Between-group differences: No significant differences in post-test performance between 3D and 2D conditions overall.
  • Spatial ability: No evidence that students with lower spatial ability learned more from 3D than from 2D in this setting.
  • Annotations: The abstract does not report a clear advantage for arrows versus numbers.
  • Student preference: Students favored 3D scans over 2D images despite similar test outcomes.
  • Time and novelty: The introduction of 3D likely reduced effective study time (orientation and interface exploration), which may have dampened potential 3D advantages in a short session.

How to interpret the results

  • 3D is not automatically superior: In brief, time-limited study, 3D interactivity did not translate into higher immediate test scores.
  • Cognitive load and orientation costs: Learning to navigate and interpret a new 3D tool can add extraneous cognitive load, temporarily offsetting conceptual benefits.
  • Assessment alignment: If tests emphasize 2D recognition or simple identification rather than spatial transfer, they may not capture unique benefits of 3D exploration.
  • Engagement vs. achievement: Preference for 3D suggests higher engagement and perceived usefulness, which could pay off in longer-term or applied tasks not measured here.
  • No spatial-ability moderation (yet): Without targeted scaffolds or extended practice, 3D alone may not close gaps for students with lower spatial skills.

Limitations to keep in mind

  • Single short session: Any 3D advantage may require multiple sessions for tool mastery and deeper spatial integration.
  • Time-on-task confound: Equal scheduled time may not equal equal effective learning time when one modality is novel.
  • Power and sensitivity: Non-significant differences could reflect modest true effects or insufficient sample size to detect small gains.
  • Assessment scope: Immediate, likely 2D-heavy tests may underrepresent transfer to real specimens or long-term retention.
  • Content scope: Only skull anatomy from two species; results may differ for more complex, layered regions (e.g., thorax, neurovasculature).
  • Tool variability: Quality of scans, interaction smoothness, and annotation design can influence outcomes; these details are not specified.
  • Prior experience: Differences in students’ prior exposure to 3D interfaces or anatomy could affect results but are not detailed.

Practical implications for instructors

  • Provide orientation: Budget dedicated time to teach controls, viewpoints, and interaction strategies before content learning.
  • Equalize effective time: If introducing 3D mid-course, add time or reduce content load so exploration does not cannibalize learning time.
  • Align assessments: Include tasks that require 3D mental transformations, multiple viewpoints, and structure–function reasoning.
  • Blend modalities: Pair 3D with targeted 2D views and labeled schematics to support dual coding and reduce cognitive load.
  • Scaffold spatial skills: Offer brief training in mental rotation and viewpoint-taking; use guided rotations and progressive disclosure of structures.
  • Design better cues: Use consistent, salient annotations (arrows/numbers) and legends; test which cueing works best for your learners.
  • Leverage preference: Use 3D to enhance motivation and lab preparedness while monitoring actual learning outcomes.

Suggestions for students

  • Master the interface first: Spend a few minutes learning to rotate, zoom, and reset views to minimize distractions during study.
  • Study from multiple angles: Rotate to reproduce textbook views and novel perspectives; name structures in each view.
  • Self-testing: Hide labels, identify structures, then reveal; alternate between 3D and 2D to build translation skills.
  • Connect to real specimens: After 3D practice, examine skulls or prosections to check transfer.

Future research directions

  • Longer-term effects: Delayed post-tests to assess retention and transfer to real-world identification and procedures.
  • Crossover/within-subjects designs: Control for individual differences and isolate modality effects.
  • Time and cognitive load measures: Log interactions, measure perceived load, and quantify effective study time.
  • Targeted support for low spatial ability: Combine 3D with pretraining, guided rotations, and scaffolds to test moderation effects.
  • Task alignment: Include performance-based assessments (e.g., OSPE/OSCE stations) requiring 3D reasoning.
  • Annotation research: Systematically compare cue types, density, and interactivity for learnability and transfer.
  • Cost–benefit and accessibility: Evaluate resource demands, device variability, and equity of access.

How this relates to prior literature

  • Consistent with mixed findings: Many studies show 3D yields similar short-term test scores to well-designed 2D, especially when time is limited.
  • Cognitive theory alignment: Without pretraining and signaling, added interactivity can increase extraneous load; with scaffolds, 3D can aid spatial integration.
  • Potential niche benefits: 3D often helps with complex topology, variant anatomy, and procedural planning—areas not fully captured by simple identification tests.

Bottom line

  • 3D scans did not outperform 2D images on immediate tests in a brief session, but students liked them.
  • To realize 3D’s promise, provide onboarding time, scaffold spatial reasoning, align assessments with 3D skills, and blend with clear 2D representations.

Cite This Article

APA
Schirone R, Corte GM, Ehlers JP, Herre C, Schmedding M, Merle R, Pachtmann J, Bahramsoltani M. (2024). Effects of 3D Scans on Veterinary Students’ Learning Outcomes Compared to Traditional 2D Images in Anatomy Classes. Animals (Basel), 14(15), 2171. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14152171

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 15
PII: 2171

Researcher Affiliations

Schirone, Rebecca
  • Institute of Veterinary Anatomy, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Koserstraße 20, 14195 Berlin, Germany.
Corte, Giuliano Mario
  • Institute of Veterinary Anatomy, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich (UZH), Winterthurerstrasse 260, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Ehlers, Jan P
  • Didactics and Educational Research in Health Science, Faculty of Health, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58455 Witten, Germany.
Herre, Christina
  • Institute of Veterinary Anatomy, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Koserstraße 20, 14195 Berlin, Germany.
Schmedding, Maximiliane
  • ISME Bern and Avenches, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Hochschulstrasse 6, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Merle, Roswitha
  • Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Königsweg 67, 14163 Berlin, Germany.
Pachtmann, Joëlle
  • Institute of Veterinary Anatomy, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Koserstraße 20, 14195 Berlin, Germany.
Bahramsoltani, Mahtab
  • Institute of Veterinary Anatomy, School of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Koserstraße 20, 14195 Berlin, Germany.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

This article includes 41 references
  1. McLachlan JC, Patten D. Anatomy teaching: Ghosts of the past, present and future.. Med. Educ. 2006;40:243–253.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02401.xpubmed: 16483327google scholar: lookup
  2. Older J. Anatomy: Amust for teaching the next generation.. Surgeon 2004;2:79–90.
    doi: 10.1016/S1479-666X(04)80050-7pubmed: 15568432google scholar: lookup
  3. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A. The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization.. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2010;3:83–93.
    doi: 10.1002/ase.139pubmed: 20205265google scholar: lookup
  4. Netterstrøm I, Kayser L. Learning to be a doctor while learning anatomy!. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2008;1:154–158.
    doi: 10.1002/ase.31pubmed: 19177402google scholar: lookup
  5. Cottam WW. Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors.. Clin. Anat. 1999;12:55–65.
    doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(1999)12:1<55::AID-CA8>3.0.CO;2-Opubmed: 9890730google scholar: lookup
  6. Wheble R, Channon SB. What Use is Anatomy in First Opinion Small Animal Veterinary Practice? A Qualitative Study.. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2021;14:440–451.
    doi: 10.1002/ase.1995pubmed: 32558304google scholar: lookup
  7. Homfray B, Attwood A, Channon SB. Anatomy in Practice: How Do Equine and Production Animal Veterinarians Apply Anatomy in Primary Care Settings?. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2022;50:643–653.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme-2022-0074pubmed: 36198110google scholar: lookup
  8. Gummery E, Cobb KA, Mossop LH, Cobb MA. Student Perceptions of Veterinary Anatomy Practical Classes: A Longitudinal Study.. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2018;45:163–176.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.0816-132r1pubmed: 29767571google scholar: lookup
  9. Böckers A, Jerg-Bretzke L, Lamp C, Brinkmann A, Traue HC, Böckers TM. The gross anatomy course: An analysis of its importance.. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2010;3:3–11.
    doi: 10.1002/ase.124pubmed: 20058224google scholar: lookup
  10. Aziz MA, McKenzie JC, Wilson JS, Cowie RJ, Ayeni SA, Dunn BK. The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics.. Anat. Rec. 2002;269:20–32.
    doi: 10.1002/ar.10046pubmed: 11891622google scholar: lookup
  11. Al-Khalili SM, Coppoc GL. 2D and 3D stereoscopic videos used as pre-anatomy lab tools improve students’ examination performance in a veterinary gross anatomy course.. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2014;41:68–76.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.0613-082Rpubmed: 24418924google scholar: lookup
  12. Khalil MK, Johnson TE, Lamar CH. Comparison of computer-based and paper-based imagery strategies in learning anatomy.. Clin. Anat. 2005;18:457–464.
    doi: 10.1002/ca.20158pubmed: 16015614google scholar: lookup
  13. Preece D, Williams SB, Lam R, Weller R. “Let’s get physical”: Advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy.. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2013;6:216–224.
    doi: 10.1002/ase.1345pubmed: 23349117google scholar: lookup
  14. Wainman B, Wolak L, Pukas G, Zheng E, Norman GR. The superiority of three-dimensional physical models to two-dimensional computer presentations in anatomy learning.. Med. Educ. 2018;52:1138–1146.
    doi: 10.1111/medu.13683pubmed: 30345680google scholar: lookup
  15. Nguyen N, Nelson AJ, Wilson TD. Computer visualizations: Factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension.. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2012;5:98–108.
    doi: 10.1002/ase.1258pubmed: 22232125google scholar: lookup
  16. Berney S, Bétrancourt M, Molinari G, Hoyek N. How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models.. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2015;8:452–462.
    doi: 10.1002/ase.1524pubmed: 25689057google scholar: lookup
  17. Garg A, Norman G, Spero L, Taylor I. Learning anatomy: Do new computer models improve spatial understanding?. Med. Teach. 1999;21:519–522.
    doi: 10.1080/01421599979239google scholar: lookup
  18. Dickson J, Gardiner A, Rhind S. Veterinary Anatomy Education and Spatial Ability: Where Now and Where Next?. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2022;49:297–305.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme.2020-0087pubmed: 33950803google scholar: lookup
  19. Höffler T.N. Spatial Ability: Its Influence on Learning with Visualizations—A Meta-Analytic Review.. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2010;22:245–269.
    doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7google scholar: lookup
  20. . Trainingsbuch EMS NC Simulation “Testlauf 2”. Band 11.
  21. Chen S, Zhu J, Cheng C, Pan Z, Liu L, Du J, Shen X, Shen Z, Zhu H, Liu J. Can virtual reality improve traditional anatomy education programmes? A mixed-methods study on the use of a 3D skull model.. BMC Med. Educ. 2020;20:395.
    doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02255-6pmc: PMC7603711pubmed: 33129310google scholar: lookup
  22. Canright A, Bescoby S, Dickson J. Evaluation of a 3D Computer Model of the Equine Paranasal Sinuses as a Tool for Veterinary Anatomy Education.. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2023;50:234–242.
    doi: 10.3138/jvme-2021-0134pubmed: 35324419google scholar: lookup
  23. Teplá M, Teplý P, Šmejkal P. Influence of 3D models and animations on students in natural subjects.. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022;9:1–20.
    doi: 10.1186/s40594-022-00382-8google scholar: lookup
  24. Bloom B.S. Time and learning.. Am. Psychol. 1974;29:682–688.
    doi: 10.1037/h0037632google scholar: lookup
  25. . Time to Learn.. Program on Teaching and Learning.
  26. Stoll L. It’s About Learning (and It’s About Time): What’s in It for Schools?. .
  27. Gettinger M, White M.A. Which is the stronger correlate of school learning? Time to learn or measured intelligence?. J. Educ. Psychol. 1979;71:405–412.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.71.4.405google scholar: lookup
  28. Raiyn J. The Role of Visual Learning in Improving Students’ High-Order Thinking Skills.. J. Educ. Pract. 2016;7:115–121.
  29. Jacobs H.L. SketchUp and Sketchfab: Tools for Teaching with 3D.. J. Soc. Archit. Hist. 2022;81:256–259.
    doi: 10.1525/jsah.2022.81.2.256google scholar: lookup
  30. Kararo M, McCartney M. Annotated primary scientific literature: A pedagogical tool for undergraduate courses.. PLoS Biol. 2019;17:e3000103.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000103pmc: PMC6342315pubmed: 30625129google scholar: lookup
  31. Wallen E, Plass JL, Brünken R. The function of annotations in the comprehension of scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability.. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2005;53:59–71.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02504798google scholar: lookup
  32. Pintrich PR, Marx RW, Boyle RA. Beyond Cold Conceptual Change: The Role of Motivational Beliefs and Classroom Contextual Factors in the Process of Conceptual Change.. Rev. Educ. Res. 1993;63:167–199.
    doi: 10.3102/00346543063002167google scholar: lookup
  33. Chan LK, Cheng MMW. An analysis of the educational value of low-fidelity anatomy models as external representations.. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2011;4:256–263.
    doi: 10.1002/ase.239pubmed: 21744512google scholar: lookup
  34. Battulga B, Konishi T, Tamura Y, Moriguchi H. The Effectiveness of an Interactive 3-Dimensional Computer Graphics Model for Medical Education.. Interact. J. Med. Res. 2012;1:e2.
    doi: 10.2196/ijmr.2172pmc: PMC3626131pubmed: 23611759google scholar: lookup
  35. Huang H-M, Rauch U, Liaw S-S. Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach.. Comput. Educ. 2010;55:1171–1182.
    doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.014google scholar: lookup
  36. Shim K-C, Park J-S, Kim H-S, Kim J-H, Park Y-C, Ryu H-I. Application of virtual reality technology in biology education.. J. Biol. Educ. 2003;37:71–74.
    doi: 10.1080/00219266.2003.9655854google scholar: lookup
  37. Kockro RA, Amaxopoulou C, Killeen T, Wagner W, Reisch R, Schwandt E, Gutenberg A, Giese A, Stofft E, Stadie AT. Stereoscopic neuroanatomy lectures using a three-dimensional virtual reality environment.. Ann. Anat. Anat. Anz. 2015;201:91–98.
    doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2015.05.006pubmed: 26245861google scholar: lookup
  38. Ponchio F, Callieri M, Dellepiane M, Scopigno R. Effective Annotations Over 3D Models.. Comput. Graph. Forum. 2020;39:89–105.
    doi: 10.1111/cgf.13664google scholar: lookup
  39. Ohkawa T, Furuta R, Sato Y. Efficient Annotation and Learning for 3D Hand Pose Estimation: A Survey.. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2023;131:3193–3206.
    doi: 10.1007/s11263-023-01856-0google scholar: lookup
  40. Patra A, Asghar A, Chaudhary P, Ravi KS. Integration of innovative educational technologies in anatomy teaching: New normal in anatomy education.. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2022;44:25–32.
    doi: 10.1007/s00276-021-02868-6pmc: PMC8741575pubmed: 34997275google scholar: lookup
  41. Peterson DC, Mlynarczyk GSA. Analysis of traditional versus three-dimensional augmented curriculum on anatomical learning outcome measures.. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2016;9:529–536.
    doi: 10.1002/ase.1612pubmed: 27078503google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Hadžiomerović N, Čaklovica K, Dučić N, Gjoni Gündemir M, Vejzović A, Fazlović N, Avdić R, Čaklovica F, Tandir F. Anatomy of meat cuts: integrating 3D scanning and virtual reality in veterinary education and training.. Front Vet Sci 2025;12:1680785.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1680785pubmed: 41209462google scholar: lookup
  2. Rodero E, González-Martínez A, Diz A, Rodero J. Cronodent I, 3D interactive manual for self-learning of the dental chronology of equines.. Front Vet Sci 2025;12:1597710.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1597710pubmed: 41112157google scholar: lookup
  3. Schirone R, Schmedding M, Weigner J, Werner M, Corte GM, Ehlers JP, Klass LG, Bahramsoltani M. The Impact of Low-Fidelity Three-Dimensional-Printed Models of the Equine Distal Limb and the Canine Forelimb in Teaching Veterinary Anatomy in Practical Classes.. Animals (Basel) 2025 May 10;15(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani15101380pubmed: 40427258google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 106,221 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.