1 - Cognitive Load and Motivational Differences Between Neurophobic and Non-neurophobic Students Learning Neuroanatomy

Poster Board Number: 1
There are separate poster presentation times for odd and even posters.
Odd poster #s – first hour
Even poster #s – second hour

Abstract Body : Introduction. Neurophobia, defined as fear of and lack of confidence with clinical neurology, is a well-documented, global phenomenon that begins when students are first exposed to academic neuroscience. Neurophobia may result in poor clinical competency and proficiency in neurology and thus can compromise patient care. Together with the rising burden of neurological disease and the current shortfall of neurologists, the need to mitigate neurophobia is clear. One of the largest drivers of neurophobia is low knowledge of basic neuroanatomy, often stemming from ineffective pedagogical approaches for these complex topics. By comparing the cognitive load and motivational profiles of neurophobic and non-neurophobic students, educators may gain a better understanding of why neurophobia develops and how it manifests. Additionally, this can serve to guide the development of educational interventions to enhance neuroanatomy instruction and mitigate neurophobia. This study aims to assess the relationships between neurophobia, cognitive load, motivation, demographics, and academic achievement in undergraduate (baccalaureate) students learning neuroanatomy.

Methods. Two successive cohorts of students enrolled in an introductory neuroanatomy course at The Ohio State University will be asked to complete the Neurophobia Questionnaire, Cognitive Load Index, and Neuroanatomy Motivation Questionnaire at four time points throughout the semester. Demographic information and examination scores will also be collected. Participants will be categorized as neurophobic or non-neurophobic based on their mean Neurophobia Questionnaire score; Fisher’s exact tests, independent t-tests, and one-way ANOVA will be used to determine if differences in cognitive load, motivational profiles, demographics, and academic achievement exist between the two groups. Effect sizes, using Cohen’s d and eta squared, will be calculated for all comparisons.

Results. Forty-four out of 152 students in the first cohort completed at least two of the four questionnaires, giving a response rate of 28.9%. Thirteen students (29.5%) were categorized as neurophobic, while 31 students (70.5%) were categorized as non-neurophobic. Compared to their non-neurophobic peers, neurophobic students reported significantly higher intrinsic cognitive load (d = .99, p = .005), extraneous cognitive load (d = .88, p = .011), and total cognitive load throughout the semester (d = 1.15, p = .001), and had significantly lower examination scores (d = -1.77, p < .001) self-efficacy (η2 = .46, p < .001) and total motivation (η2 = .22, p < .001). Interestingly, demographic characteristics, intrinsic motivation, self-determination, career motivation, and grade motivation were not significantly different between neurophobic and non-neurophobic students (p > .05).

Conclusion. Preliminary results indicate that neurophobia is present in baccalaureate students at a similar prevalence as medical students and junior doctors, corroborating reports that neurophobia begins when students are first exposed to academic neuroscience. In addition, this work shows that high cognitive load and low self-efficacy are both modifiable factors associated with neurophobia. Educational interventions that optimize intrinsic cognitive load, reduce extraneous cognitive load, and enhance self-efficacy may serve to reduce the prevalence and severity of neurophobia in this population.