Trial process
cognitive overload
The participants were randomly assigned to two groups (3D PDF and 2D atlas). Simple randomization was performed using SPSS v22.0 for Windows, ensuring that each participant had an equal chance of being assigned to either group.The trial took place at Gazi University Faculty of Medicine. The videos were displayed to the participants in a classroom setting through a projector. Two proctors were present in each classroom, and identical procedures were followed in all classrooms throughout the trial. At the beginning of the trial, the purpose of the study was explained to the participants, and they were instructed not to engage in any distracting or cheating behavior.In Step-1, all groups underwent the same process, including watching the liver videos twice (5 min + 5 min), completing the liver test (10 min), watching the genitalia videos twice (10 min + 10 min), and completing the genitalia test (20 min). The same videos were watched two times by considering that they had no prior learning on these topics and watching only once would lead to a cognitive overload. They were provided with printed versions of the video transcripts and were allowed to take notes while watching the videos. These paper prints were collected prior to administering each test. Step-1 lasted for one hour.In Step-2, the delayed test, which is identical to the immediate test, was administered 10 days after the completion of Step-1 to evaluate the difference in performance between the groups in the long-term. Multiple sessions were arranged to accommodate the availability of the participants, and they were instructed not to share information about the test with other participants between sessions to ensure the reliability of the study. They had not been informed that the tests will be identical. The delayed test was carried out in the same classroom settings with proctors.Both the immediate and delayed tests were administered as written exams (paper and pencil test), and their scoring involved at least two researchers using the answer key. If there were any disagreements in scoring, they were resolved with the help of the third researcher.