Claims

AR and 2D methods boosted knowledge similarly, but the 3D AR method drew greater satisfaction and student preference (Lopez et al.)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Among 67 neuropsychology students, an AR 3D visualisation task and a 2D textbook-colouring task raised knowledge to a similar degree, while the 3D method received greater satisfaction ratings and was preferred by students. → K Anniesmitha 2026

Evidence

K Anniesmitha 2026

K Anniesmitha, Rao K G Mohandas, Aithal P Ashwini, Bandekar Nikita N., Mandal Tatiyana, George Bincy M. (2026). Effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning in neuroanatomy education among health professionals - a systematic review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09764-w

q3 · i? · review · r3

Study of 67 neuropsychology students comparing a mobile AR application for brain visualisation with a 2D textbook approach on knowledge, satisfaction and preference. The review's Table 5 additionally reports a strong AR preference effect (odds = 12.3, χ2 = 12.3, P < 0.001).

"The two methods boosted knowledge similarly, but the 3D method had greater satisfaction ratings and was more popular among students."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.