OBJECTIVE: Eye tracking in three dimensions is novel, but established descriptors derived from two-dimensional (2D) studies are not transferable. We aimed to develop metrics suitable for statistical comparison of eye-tracking data obtained from readers of three-dimensional (3D) "virtual" medical imaging, using CT colonography (CTC) as a typical example. METHODS: Ten experienced radiologists were eye tracked while observing eight 3D endoluminal CTC videos. Subsequently, we developed metrics that described their visual search patterns based on concepts derived from 2D gaze studies. Statistical methods were developed to allow analysis of the metrics. RESULTS: Eye tracking was possible for all readers. Visual dwell on the moving region of interest (ROI) was defined as pursuit of the moving object across multiple frames. Using this concept of pursuit, five categories of metrics were defined that allowed characterization of reader gaze behaviour. These were time to first pursuit, identification and assessment time, pursuit duration, ROI size and pursuit frequency. Additional subcategories allowed us to further characterize visual search between readers in the test population. CONCLUSION: We propose metrics for the characterization of visual search of 3D moving medical images. These metrics can be used to compare readers' visual search patterns and provide a reproducible framework for the analysis of gaze tracking in the 3D environment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article describes a novel set of metrics that can be used to describe gaze behaviour when eye tracking readers during interpretation of 3D medical images. These metrics build on those established for 2D eye tracking and are applicable to increasingly common 3D medical image displays.
OBJECTIVE: Eye tracking in three dimensions is novel, but established descriptors derived from two-dimensional (2D) studies are not transferable. We aimed to develop metrics suitable for statistical comparison of eye-tracking data obtained from readers of three-dimensional (3D) "virtual" medical imaging, using CT colonography (CTC) as a typical example. METHODS: Ten experienced radiologists were eye tracked while observing eight 3D endoluminal CTC videos. Subsequently, we developed metrics that described their visual search patterns based on concepts derived from 2D gaze studies. Statistical methods were developed to allow analysis of the metrics. RESULTS: Eye tracking was possible for all readers. Visual dwell on the moving region of interest (ROI) was defined as pursuit of the moving object across multiple frames. Using this concept of pursuit, five categories of metrics were defined that allowed characterization of reader gaze behaviour. These were time to first pursuit, identification and assessment time, pursuit duration, ROI size and pursuit frequency. Additional subcategories allowed us to further characterize visual search between readers in the test population. CONCLUSION: We propose metrics for the characterization of visual search of 3D moving medical images. These metrics can be used to compare readers' visual search patterns and provide a reproducible framework for the analysis of gaze tracking in the 3D environment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article describes a novel set of metrics that can be used to describe gaze behaviour when eye tracking readers during interpretation of 3D medical images. These metrics build on those established for 2D eye tracking and are applicable to increasingly common 3D medical image displays.
Authors: Steve Halligan; Susan Mallett; Douglas G Altman; Justine McQuillan; Maria Proud; Gareth Beddoe; Lesley Honeyfield; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Steve Halligan; Douglas G Altman; Susan Mallett; Stuart A Taylor; David Burling; Mary Roddie; Lesley Honeyfield; Justine McQuillan; Hamdan Amin; Jamshid Dehmeshki Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Peter Phillips; Darren Boone; Susan Mallett; Stuart A Taylor; Douglas G Altman; David Manning; Alastair Gale; Steve Halligan Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Linda C Kelahan; Allan Fong; Joseph Blumenthal; Swaminathan Kandaswamy; Raj M Ratwani; Ross W Filice Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Emma Helbren; Thomas R Fanshawe; Peter Phillips; Susan Mallett; Darren Boone; Alastair Gale; Douglas G Altman; Stuart A Taylor; David Manning; Steve Halligan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lauren H Williams; Ann J Carrigan; Megan Mills; William F Auffermann; Anina N Rich; Trafton Drew Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2021-07-14
Authors: Andrew A Plumb; Peter Phillips; Graeme Spence; Susan Mallett; Stuart A Taylor; Steve Halligan; Thomas Fanshawe Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J N Stember; H Celik; E Krupinski; P D Chang; S Mutasa; B J Wood; A Lignelli; G Moonis; L H Schwartz; S Jambawalikar; U Bagci Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Colin R Bell; Adam Szulewski; Melanie Walker; Conor McKaigney; Graeme Ross; Louise Rang; Joseph Newbigging; John Kendall Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2020-02-28
Authors: Thomas R Fanshawe; Peter Phillips; Andrew Plumb; Emma Helbren; Steve Halligan; Stuart A Taylor; Alastair Gale; Susan Mallett Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Larissa den Boer; Marieke F van der Schaaf; Koen L Vincken; Chris P Mol; Bobby G Stuijfzand; Anouk van der Gijp Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.853