Can low-fidelity models be effective anatomy teaching tools?

Excerpt

We read with interest, Nayak and Soumya letter [8], who noted weak points in a low-fidelity model (LFM) of inguinal canal used for anatomy education. We agree with the authors’ view that each anatomical model used for teaching should not contain mistakes regarding the anatomy representation. However, we would like to comment on the authors’ explicit opinion and letter title, according to which “flawless, accurate models only can help in deeper learning of anatomy”. We would like to point out that the literature has provided evidence that flawless and accurate models, characterized as high-fidelity models (HFMs), should not be definitively considered superior anatomy teaching tools compared to LFMs [1‐4]. There is no absolute need of HFMs for effective anatomy education [5‐7]. Chan and Cheng [2], after performing a literature review on the LFMs educational value, found that although these models do not accurately represent the anatomical structures morphometry (shape and surface details), they strongly represent the structures’ spatial relationship, a feature essential for the three-dimensional comprehension. Lindquist et al. [4] investigated 34 students (randomly allocated to 3 groups) who received lecture-based paranasal sinuses anatomy teaching. The 11 students did not receive additional training, 12 students were trained via a high-fidelity endoscopic sinus surgery simulator and 11 students were trained via a low-fidelity endoscopic sinus surgery simulator. Insignificant difference in performance (identification of paranasal sinuses anatomy) was recorded between the three groups. Virtual resources, which are useful in a modern undergraduate and postgraduate anatomy curriculum, have also been investigated by Birbara and Pather [1]. The authors explored if physical fidelity of virtual anatomy learning resources plays a role in enhancing anatomical knowledge. Birbara and Pather [1] examined 333 students, who were randomized to receive liver anatomy teaching using HFMs (165 students) and using LFMs (168 students). Insignificant difference in knowledge outcomes was noted between the two groups. Birbara and Pather [1] concluded that the high physical fidelity is not necessarily required for virtual anatomy learning resources. The prospective randomized study by Fritz et al. [3] investigated the HFM effectiveness compared to LFM in laryngeal anatomy education of 100 health care students. Half of the students were taught with a HFM and the rest of them with a LFM. The authors noted insignificant difference in knowledge outcomes between the two teaching tools and a similar preservation of students’ knowledge after 6 months, regardless of the teaching tool (HFM or LFM) [3]. …