Literature DB >> 18649069

Evaluating interaction techniques for stack mode viewing.

M Stella Atkins1, Jennifer Fernquist, Arthur E Kirkpatrick, Bruce B Forster.   

Abstract

Three interaction techniques were evaluated for scrolling stack mode displays of volumetric data. Two used a scroll-wheel mouse: one used only the wheel, while another used a "click and drag" technique for fast scrolling, leaving the wheel for fine adjustments. The third technique used a Shuttle Xpress jog wheel. In a within-subjects design, nine radiologists searched stacked images for simulated hyper-intense regions on brain, knee, and thigh MR studies. Dependent measures were speed, accuracy, navigation path, and user preference. The radiologists considered the task realistic. They had high inter-subject variability in completion times, far larger than the differences between techniques. Most radiologists (eight out of nine) preferred familiar mouse-based techniques. Most participants scanned the data in two passes, first locating anomalies, then scanning for omissions. Participants spent a mean 10.4 s/trial exploring anomalies, with only mild variation between participants. Their rates of forward navigation searching for anomalies varied much more. Interaction technique significantly affected forward navigation rate (scroll wheel 5.4 slices/s, click and drag 9.4, and jog wheel 6.9). It is not clear what constrained the slowest navigators. The fastest navigator used a unique strategy of moving quickly just beyond an anomaly, then backing up. Eight naïve students performed a similar protocol. Their times and variability were similar to the radiologists, but more (three out of eight) students preferred the jog wheel. It may be worthwhile to introduce techniques such as the jog wheel to radiologists during training, and several techniques might be provided on workstations, allowing individuals to choose their preferred method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18649069      PMCID: PMC3043711          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-008-9140-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  11 in total

1.  Exploring presentation methods for tomographic medical image viewing.

Authors:  J E van der Heyden; K M Inkpen; M S Atkins; M S Carpendale
Journal:  Artif Intell Med       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 5.326

Review 2.  Evolution of the digital revolution: a radiologist perspective.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner; Eliot L Siegel; Khan Siddiqui
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2004-01-30       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Alternative input devices for efficient navigation of large CT angiography data sets.

Authors:  Anthony J Sherbondy; Djamila Holmlund; Geoffrey D Rubin; Pamela K Schraedley; Terry Winograd; Sandy Napel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Evaluating different radiology workstation interaction techniques with radiologists and laypersons.

Authors:  A Moise; M S Atkins; R Rohling
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Thin-section CT of the lungs: eye-tracking analysis of the visual approach to reading tiled and stacked display formats.

Authors:  S M Ellis; X Hu; L Dempere-Marco; G Z Yang; A U Wells; D M Hansell
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2006-07-10       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 6.  Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Maria Kallergi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Simplifying the exploration of volumetric images: development of a 3D user interface for the radiologist's workplace.

Authors:  M Teistler; R S Breiman; T Lison; O J Bott; D P Pretschner; A Aziz; W L Nowinski
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Characterization of radiologists' search strategies for lung nodule detection: slice-based versus volumetric displays.

Authors:  Xiao Hui Wang; Janet E Durick; Amy Lu; David L Herbert; Saraswathi K Golla; Kristin Foley; C Samia Piracha; Dilip D Shinde; Betty E Shindel; Carl R Fuhrman; Cynthia A Britton; Diane C Strollo; Sherry S Shang; Joan M Lacomis; Walter F Good
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Interpretation of CT scans with PACS image display in stack mode.

Authors:  A G Mathie; N H Strickland
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Radiologist assessment of PACS user interface devices.

Authors:  David L Weiss; Khan M Siddiqui; Joe Scopelliti
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.532

View more
  4 in total

1.  Alternative user interface devices for improved navigation of CT datasets.

Authors:  M Lidén; T Andersson; H Geijer
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Factors Affecting Radiologist's PACS Usage.

Authors:  Daniel Forsberg; Beverly Rosipko; Jeffrey L Sunshine
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 3.  Review of prospects and challenges of eye tracking in volumetric imaging.

Authors:  Antje C Venjakob; Claudia R Mello-Thoms
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-09-29

4.  Of Mice and Roentgen: Radiologist Satisfaction with a Non-conventional 13-Button Mouse-One Institution's Experience.

Authors:  Kevin Denton; Irfanullah Haider; Jacqueline Hill; Suzanne L Hunt; Ryan Ash
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 4.056

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.