As hours devoted to human anatomy curricula fall under threat and curricular delivery methods remain in flux, many new teaching innovations are emerging, which require comprehensive evaluation to ensure evidence-based teaching is maintained. Although grades are the predominant measure of 'learning', alternative metrics can assess more nuanced and meaningful outcomes. Two common predictors of students' three-dimensional understanding of the body and depth of learning are visuospatial abilities and approaches to learning, respectively. This study evaluated and compared the relative predictive power of these metrics on written and laboratory-based assessments in a human anatomy course. Deep approaches to learning and visuospatial abilities were expected to positively correlate with overall performance, with visuospatial abilities being the more salient predictor, especially on laboratory-based assessments. Additionally, visuospatial abilities were expected to positively correlate with deep learning approaches and negatively correlate with surface learning approaches. Multiple linear regression models controlling for covariates found that both visuospatial abilities (p = 0.049; p = 0.014) and deep learning approaches (p = 0.001; p = 0.001) were independent significant predictors of final and laboratory-based grades, while only deep learning approaches were significantly predictive of written grades (p = 0.007). There was no significant relationship between visuospatial abilities and approaches to learning. Given these findings and the increased reliance on visuospatially demanding digital learning activities in anatomy, both metrics should be considered when evaluating the impact of teaching innovations. Further, educators should design learning resources and environments that train visuospatial abilities and promote deeper learning approaches to maximize students' success.