↓ Skip to main content

Varied Practice in Laparoscopy Training: Beneficial Learning Stimulation or Cognitive Overload?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Varied Practice in Laparoscopy Training: Beneficial Learning Stimulation or Cognitive Overload?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00685
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward N. Spruit, Luca Kleijweg, Guido P. H. Band, Jaap F. Hamming

Abstract

Determining the optimal design for surgical skills training is an ongoing research endeavor. In education literature, varied practice is listed as a positive intervention to improve acquisition of knowledge and motor skills. In the current study we tested the effectiveness of a varied practice intervention during laparoscopy training. Twenty-four trainees (control group) without prior experience received a 3 weeks laparoscopic skills training utilizing four basic and one advanced training task. Twenty-eight trainees (experimental group) received the same training with a random training task schedule, more frequent task switching and inverted viewing conditions on the four basic training tasks, but not the advanced task. Results showed inferior performance of the experimental group on the four basic laparoscopy tasks during training, at the end of training and at a 2 months retention session. We assume the inverted viewing conditions have led to the deterioration of learning in the experimental group because no significant differences were found between groups on the only task that had not been practiced under inverted viewing conditions; the advanced laparoscopic task. Potential moderating effects of inter-task similarity, task complexity, and trainee characteristics are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 6 22%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 4 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 8 30%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,722,162
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,938
of 29,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,477
of 304,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#285
of 432 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,930 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 432 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.