Literature DB >> 22833264

Surgeons blinded by enhanced navigation: the effect of augmented reality on attention.

Benjamin J Dixon1, Michael J Daly, Harley Chan, Allan D Vescan, Ian J Witterick, Jonathan C Irish.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Advanced image-guidance systems allowing presentation of three-dimensional navigational data in real time are being developed enthusiastically for many medical procedures. Other industries, including aviation and the military, have noted that shifting attention toward such compelling assistance has detrimental effects. Using the detection rate of unexpected findings, we assess whether inattentional blindness is significant in a surgical context and evaluate the impact of on-screen navigational cuing with augmented reality.
METHODS: Surgeons and trainees performed an endoscopic navigation exercise on a cadaveric specimen. The subjects were randomized to either a standard endoscopic view (control) or an AR view consisting of an endoscopic video fused with anatomic contours. Two unexpected findings were presented in close proximity to the target point: one critical complication and one foreign body (screw). Task completion time, accuracy, and recognition of findings were recorded.
RESULTS: Detection of the complication was 0/15 in the AR group versus 7/17 in the control group (p = 0.008). Detection of the screw was 1/15 (AR) and 7/17 (control) (p = 0.041). Recognition of either finding was 12/17 for the control group and 1/15 for the AR group (p < 0.001). Accuracy was greater for the AR group than for the control group, with the median distance from the target point measuring respectively 2.10 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 1.29-2.37) and 4.13 (IQR, 3.11-7.39) (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Inattentional blindness was evident in both groups. Although more accurate, the AR group was less likely to identify significant unexpected findings clearly within view. Advanced navigational displays may increase precision, but strategies to mitigate attentional costs need further investigation to allow safe implementation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22833264     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2457-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  28 in total

1.  Driven to distraction: dual-Task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone.

Authors:  D L Strayer; W A Johnston
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-11

2.  Head-up displays: effects of clutter, display intensity, and display location on pilot performance.

Authors:  P M Ververs; C D Wickens
Journal:  Int J Aviat Psychol       Date:  1998

3.  New alternative methods of analyzing human behavior in cued target acquisition.

Authors:  Masha Maltz; David Shinar
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.888

4.  Head up versus head down: the costs of imprecision, unreliability, and visual clutter on cue effectiveness for display signaling.

Authors:  Michelle Yeh; James L Merlo; Christopher D Wickens; David L Brandenburg
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.888

Review 5.  Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance.

Authors:  John D Lee; Katrina A See
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.888

6.  Fused video and ultrasound images for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: a phantom study.

Authors:  Carling L Cheung; Chris Wedlake; John Moore; Stephen E Pautler; Terry M Peters
Journal:  Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv       Date:  2010

7.  Does computer-aided diagnosis for lung tumors change satisfaction of search in chest radiography?

Authors:  Kevin S Berbaum; Robert T Caldwell; Kevin M Schartz; Brad H Thompson; E A Franken
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Augmented reality and image overlay navigation with OsiriX in laparoscopic and robotic surgery: not only a matter of fashion.

Authors:  Francesco Volonté; François Pugin; Pascal Bucher; Maki Sugimoto; Osman Ratib; Philippe Morel
Journal:  J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 7.027

9.  Cause of satisfaction of search effects in contrast studies of the abdomen.

Authors:  K S Berbaum; E A Franken; D D Dorfman; E M Miller; E A Krupinski; K Kreinbring; R T Caldwell; C H Lu
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  The role of a computed tomography-based image registered navigation system for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a comparative study in a porcine model.

Authors:  G Fernández-Esparrach; R San José Estépar; C Guarner-Argente; G Martínez-Pallí; R Navarro; C Rodríguez de Miguel; H Córdova; C C Thompson; A M Lacy; L Donoso; J R Ayuso-Colella; A Ginès; M Pellisé; J Llach; K G Vosburgh
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 10.093

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  Novel Technologies in Urologic Surgery: a Rapidly Changing Scenario.

Authors:  Giorgio Gandaglia; Peter Schatteman; Geert De Naeyer; Frederiek D'Hondt; Alexandre Mottrie
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Promises and ethical pitfalls of surgical innovation: the case of bariatric surgery.

Authors:  John B Dixon; Jennifer Logue; Paul A Komesaroff
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.129

3.  Comparative effectiveness and safety of image guidance systems in neurosurgery: a preclinical randomized study.

Authors:  Hani J Marcus; Philip Pratt; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Thomas P Cundy; Adam P Marcus; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi; Dipankar Nandi
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 5.115

4.  Auditory feedback to support image-guided medical needle placement.

Authors:  David Black; Julian Hettig; Maria Luz; Christian Hansen; Ron Kikinis; Horst Hahn
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  Inattention blindness in surgery.

Authors:  Archie Hughes-Hallett; Erik K Mayer; Hani J Marcus; Philip Pratt; Sam Mason; Ara W Darzi; Justin A Vale
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Augmented visualization with depth perception cues to improve the surgeon's performance in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Lucio Tommaso De Paolis; Valerio De Luca
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 2.602

7.  AR in VR: assessing surgical augmented reality visualizations in a steerable virtual reality environment.

Authors:  Julian Hettig; Sandy Engelhardt; Christian Hansen; Gabriel Mistelbauer
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 2.924

8.  A wearable navigation display can improve attentiveness to the surgical field.

Authors:  James Stewart; Mark Billinghurst
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2016-03-26       Impact factor: 2.924

9.  Bridging the gap between formal and experience-based knowledge for context-aware laparoscopy.

Authors:  Darko Katić; Jürgen Schuck; Anna-Laura Wekerle; Hannes Kenngott; Beat Peter Müller-Stich; Rüdiger Dillmann; Stefanie Speidel
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2016-03-30       Impact factor: 2.924

10.  Auditory display for fluorescence-guided open brain tumor surgery.

Authors:  David Black; Horst K Hahn; Ron Kikinis; Karin Wårdell; Neda Haj-Hosseini
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 2.924

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.