THE USE OF ANATOMICAL ATLASES AND INTERACTIVE PLATFORMS IN DEVELOPING SPATIAL THINKING AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS
Keywords:
anatomy education, anatomical atlas, interactive platform, spatial thinkingAbstract
Spatial thinking is one of the most important cognitive skills required for successful learning of human anatomy. Medical students must understand not only the names and functions of anatomical structures but also their three-dimensional position, orientation, depth, and relationships with surrounding tissues. Traditional anatomical atlases provide systematic and visually organized information, while modern interactive platforms offer dynamic three-dimensional visualization, manipulation of structures, and repeated independent learning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational role of anatomical atlases and interactive digital platforms in developing spatial thinking among medical students. A literature-based analytical approach was used to examine current evidence concerning visual learning, three-dimensional anatomical comprehension, cognitive load, digital anatomy resources, and student-centered learning. The analysis indicates that anatomical atlases remain highly valuable for structured learning and terminology, whereas interactive platforms are especially effective for understanding complex spatial relationships. The combined use of both resources may improve spatial orientation, anatomical reasoning, student engagement, and the ability to transfer theoretical knowledge to clinical contexts. Therefore, a blended approach integrating traditional atlases with interactive digital technologies can provide a more effective model for contemporary anatomy education
Downloads
References
1. Yammine K, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2015;8(6):525–538.
2. Azer SA, Azer S. 3D anatomy models and impact on learning: A review of the quality of the literature. Health Professions Education. 2016;2(2):80–98.
3. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Annals of Anatomy. 2016;208:151–157.
4. Moro C, Štromberga Z, Raikos A, Stirling A. The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2017;10(6):549–559.
5. Hackett M, Proctor M. Three-dimensional display technologies for anatomical education: A literature review. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2016;25:641–654.
6. Triepels CPR, Smeets CFA, Notten KJB, et al. Does three-dimensional anatomy improve student understanding? Clinical Anatomy. 2020;33(1):25–33.
7. Garg AX, Norman G, Sperotable L. How medical students learn spatial anatomy. The Lancet. 2001;357(9253):363–364.
8. Luursema JM, Verwey WB, Kommers PAM, Geelkerken RH, Vos HJ. Optimizing conditions for computer-assisted anatomical learning. Interacting with Computers. 2006;18(5):1123–1138.
9. Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM. Gray's Anatomy for Students. 5th ed. Elsevier; 2023.
10. Netter FH. Atlas of Human Anatomy. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2022



















