Using Functional Neuroimaging Combined With a Think-Aloud Protocol to Explore Clinical Reasoning Expertise in Internal Medicine

Steven J. Durning; John Graner; Anthony R., Jr. Artino; Louis N. Pangaro; Thomas J. Beckman; Eric Holmboe; Terrance Oakes; Michael J. Roy; Gerard Riedy; Vincent F., II Capaldi; Robert Walter; Cees van der Vleuten; Lambert Schuwirth

doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00242

Using Functional Neuroimaging Combined With a Think-Aloud Protocol to Explore Clinical Reasoning Expertise in Internal Medicine

Steven J. Durning^*, John Graner, Anthony R., Jr. Artino, Louis N. Pangaro, Thomas J. Beckman, Eric Holmboe, Terrance Oakes, Michael J. Roy, Gerard Riedy, Vincent F., II Capaldi, Robert Walter, Cees van der Vleuten, Lambert Schuwirth

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Background: Clinical reasoning is essential to medical practice, but because it entails internal mental processes, it is difficult to assess. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and think-aloud protocols may improve understanding of clinical reasoning as these methods can more directly assess these processes. The objective of our study was to use a combination of fMRI and think-aloud procedures to examine fMRI correlates of a leading theoretical model in clinical reasoning based on experimental findings to date: analytic (i.e., actively comparing and contrasting diagnostic entities) and nonanalytic (i.e., pattern recognition) reasoning. We hypothesized that there would be functional neuroimaging differences between analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory. Methods: 17 board-certified experts in internal medicine answered and reflected on validated U.S. Medical Licensing Exam and American Board of Internal Medicine multiple-choice questions (easy and difficult) during an fMRI scan. This procedure was followed by completion of a formal think-aloud procedure. Results: fMRI findings provide some support for the presence of analytic and nonanalytic reasoning systems. Statistically significant activation of prefrontal cortex distinguished answering incorrectly versus correctly (p <0.01), whereas activation of precuneus and midtemporal gyrus distinguished not guessing from guessing (p <0.01). Conclusions: We found limited fMRI evidence to support analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory, as our results indicate functional differences with correct vs. incorrect answers and guessing vs. not guessing. However, our findings did not suggest one consistent fMRI activation pattern of internal medicine expertise. This model of employing fMRI correlates offers opportunities to enhance our understanding of theory, as well as improve our teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, a key outcome of medical education.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	72-78
Journal	Military Medicine
Volume	177
Issue number	9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00242
Publication status	Published - Sept 2012

Access to Document

10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00242

Cite this

Durning, S. J., Graner, J., Artino, A. R. . J., Pangaro, L. N., Beckman, T. J., Holmboe, E., Oakes, T., Roy, M. J., Riedy, G., Capaldi, V. F. . II., Walter, R., van der Vleuten, C., & Schuwirth, L. (2012). Using Functional Neuroimaging Combined With a Think-Aloud Protocol to Explore Clinical Reasoning Expertise in Internal Medicine. Military Medicine, 177(9), 72-78. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00242

@article{dcf475718e8041b392e80242bb087953,

title = "Using Functional Neuroimaging Combined With a Think-Aloud Protocol to Explore Clinical Reasoning Expertise in Internal Medicine",

abstract = "Background: Clinical reasoning is essential to medical practice, but because it entails internal mental processes, it is difficult to assess. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and think-aloud protocols may improve understanding of clinical reasoning as these methods can more directly assess these processes. The objective of our study was to use a combination of fMRI and think-aloud procedures to examine fMRI correlates of a leading theoretical model in clinical reasoning based on experimental findings to date: analytic (i.e., actively comparing and contrasting diagnostic entities) and nonanalytic (i.e., pattern recognition) reasoning. We hypothesized that there would be functional neuroimaging differences between analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory. Methods: 17 board-certified experts in internal medicine answered and reflected on validated U.S. Medical Licensing Exam and American Board of Internal Medicine multiple-choice questions (easy and difficult) during an fMRI scan. This procedure was followed by completion of a formal think-aloud procedure. Results: fMRI findings provide some support for the presence of analytic and nonanalytic reasoning systems. Statistically significant activation of prefrontal cortex distinguished answering incorrectly versus correctly (p <0.01), whereas activation of precuneus and midtemporal gyrus distinguished not guessing from guessing (p <0.01). Conclusions: We found limited fMRI evidence to support analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory, as our results indicate functional differences with correct vs. incorrect answers and guessing vs. not guessing. However, our findings did not suggest one consistent fMRI activation pattern of internal medicine expertise. This model of employing fMRI correlates offers opportunities to enhance our understanding of theory, as well as improve our teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, a key outcome of medical education.",

author = "Durning, {Steven J.} and John Graner and Artino, {Anthony R., Jr.} and Pangaro, {Louis N.} and Beckman, {Thomas J.} and Eric Holmboe and Terrance Oakes and Roy, {Michael J.} and Gerard Riedy and Capaldi, {Vincent F., II} and Robert Walter and {van der Vleuten}, Cees and Lambert Schuwirth",

year = "2012",

month = sep,

doi = "10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00242",

language = "English",

volume = "177",

pages = "72--78",

journal = "Military Medicine",

issn = "0026-4075",

publisher = "Association of Military Surgeons of the US",

number = "9",

}

Durning, SJ, Graner, J, Artino, ARJ, Pangaro, LN, Beckman, TJ, Holmboe, E, Oakes, T, Roy, MJ, Riedy, G, Capaldi, VFII, Walter, R, van der Vleuten, C & Schuwirth, L 2012, 'Using Functional Neuroimaging Combined With a Think-Aloud Protocol to Explore Clinical Reasoning Expertise in Internal Medicine', Military Medicine, vol. 177, no. 9, pp. 72-78. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00242

TY - JOUR

T1 - Using Functional Neuroimaging Combined With a Think-Aloud Protocol to Explore Clinical Reasoning Expertise in Internal Medicine

AU - Durning, Steven J.

AU - Graner, John

AU - Artino, Anthony R., Jr.

AU - Pangaro, Louis N.

AU - Beckman, Thomas J.

AU - Holmboe, Eric

AU - Oakes, Terrance

AU - Roy, Michael J.

AU - Riedy, Gerard

AU - Capaldi, Vincent F., II

AU - Walter, Robert

AU - van der Vleuten, Cees

AU - Schuwirth, Lambert

PY - 2012/9

Y1 - 2012/9

N2 - Background: Clinical reasoning is essential to medical practice, but because it entails internal mental processes, it is difficult to assess. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and think-aloud protocols may improve understanding of clinical reasoning as these methods can more directly assess these processes. The objective of our study was to use a combination of fMRI and think-aloud procedures to examine fMRI correlates of a leading theoretical model in clinical reasoning based on experimental findings to date: analytic (i.e., actively comparing and contrasting diagnostic entities) and nonanalytic (i.e., pattern recognition) reasoning. We hypothesized that there would be functional neuroimaging differences between analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory. Methods: 17 board-certified experts in internal medicine answered and reflected on validated U.S. Medical Licensing Exam and American Board of Internal Medicine multiple-choice questions (easy and difficult) during an fMRI scan. This procedure was followed by completion of a formal think-aloud procedure. Results: fMRI findings provide some support for the presence of analytic and nonanalytic reasoning systems. Statistically significant activation of prefrontal cortex distinguished answering incorrectly versus correctly (p <0.01), whereas activation of precuneus and midtemporal gyrus distinguished not guessing from guessing (p <0.01). Conclusions: We found limited fMRI evidence to support analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory, as our results indicate functional differences with correct vs. incorrect answers and guessing vs. not guessing. However, our findings did not suggest one consistent fMRI activation pattern of internal medicine expertise. This model of employing fMRI correlates offers opportunities to enhance our understanding of theory, as well as improve our teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, a key outcome of medical education.

AB - Background: Clinical reasoning is essential to medical practice, but because it entails internal mental processes, it is difficult to assess. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and think-aloud protocols may improve understanding of clinical reasoning as these methods can more directly assess these processes. The objective of our study was to use a combination of fMRI and think-aloud procedures to examine fMRI correlates of a leading theoretical model in clinical reasoning based on experimental findings to date: analytic (i.e., actively comparing and contrasting diagnostic entities) and nonanalytic (i.e., pattern recognition) reasoning. We hypothesized that there would be functional neuroimaging differences between analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory. Methods: 17 board-certified experts in internal medicine answered and reflected on validated U.S. Medical Licensing Exam and American Board of Internal Medicine multiple-choice questions (easy and difficult) during an fMRI scan. This procedure was followed by completion of a formal think-aloud procedure. Results: fMRI findings provide some support for the presence of analytic and nonanalytic reasoning systems. Statistically significant activation of prefrontal cortex distinguished answering incorrectly versus correctly (p <0.01), whereas activation of precuneus and midtemporal gyrus distinguished not guessing from guessing (p <0.01). Conclusions: We found limited fMRI evidence to support analytic and nonanalytic reasoning theory, as our results indicate functional differences with correct vs. incorrect answers and guessing vs. not guessing. However, our findings did not suggest one consistent fMRI activation pattern of internal medicine expertise. This model of employing fMRI correlates offers opportunities to enhance our understanding of theory, as well as improve our teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning, a key outcome of medical education.

U2 - 10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00242

DO - 10.7205/MILMED-D-12-00242

M3 - Article

SN - 0026-4075

VL - 177

SP - 72

EP - 78

JO - Military Medicine

JF - Military Medicine

IS - 9

ER -