Literature DB >> 26870746

Image toggling saves time in mammography.

Trafton Drew1, Avi M Aizenman2, Matthew B Thompson3, Mark D Kovacs4, Michael Trambert5, Murray A Reicher6, Jeremy M Wolfe7.   

Abstract

When two images are perfectly aligned, even subtle differences are readily detected when the images are "toggled" back and forth in the same location. However, substantial changes between two photographs can be missed if the images are misaligned ("change blindness"). Nevertheless, recent work from our lab, testing nonradiologists, suggests that toggling misaligned photographs leads to superior performance compared to side-by-side viewing (SBS). In order to determine if a benefit of toggling misaligned images may be observed in clinical mammography, we developed an image toggling technique where pairs of new and prior breast imaging exam images could be efficiently toggled back and forth. Twenty-three radiologists read 10 mammograms evenly divided in toggle and SBS modes. The toggle mode led to a 6-s benefit in reaching a decision [[Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]]. The toggle viewing mode also led to a 5% improvement in diagnostic accuracy, though in our small sample this effect was not statistically reliable. Time savings were found even though successive mammograms were not perfectly aligned. Given the ever-increasing caseload for radiologists, this simple manipulation of how the images are viewed could save valuable time in clinical practice, allowing radiologists to read more cases or spend more time on difficult cases.

Entities:  

Keywords:  change blindness; detection; display technology; perceptual errors; visual search

Year:  2015        PMID: 26870746      PMCID: PMC4748143          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.3.1.011003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  30 in total

1.  Saccadic eye movements and cognition.

Authors: 
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  Failure to detect displacement of the visual world during saccadic eye movements.

Authors:  B Bridgeman; D Hendry; L Stark
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 3.  Can computer-aided detection be detrimental to mammographic interpretation?

Authors:  Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions.

Authors:  Margarita L Zuley; Andriy I Bandos; Marie A Ganott; Jules H Sumkin; Amy E Kelly; Victor J Catullo; Grace Y Rathfon; Amy H Lu; David Gur
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.

Authors:  J M Lewin; R E Hendrick; C J D'Orsi; P K Isaacs; L J Moss; A Karellas; G A Sisney; C C Kuni; G R Cutter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Change blindness: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Daniel J Simons; Ronald A Rensink
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 8.  Optimizing analysis, visualization, and navigation of large image data sets: one 5000-section CT scan can ruin your whole day.

Authors:  Katherine P Andriole; Jeremy M Wolfe; Ramin Khorasani; S Ted Treves; David J Getty; Francine L Jacobson; Michael L Steigner; John J Pan; Arkadiusz Sitek; Steven E Seltzer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study.

Authors:  David Gur; Margarita L Zuley; Maria I Anello; Grace Y Rathfon; Denise M Chough; Marie A Ganott; Christiane M Hakim; Luisa Wallace; Amy Lu; Andriy I Bandos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Spiral CT of the chest: comparison of cine and film-based viewing.

Authors:  S E Seltzer; P F Judy; D F Adams; F L Jacobson; P Stark; R Kikinis; R G Swensson; S Hooton; B Head; U Feldman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  3 in total

1.  Let's Use Cognitive Science to Create Collaborative Workstations.

Authors:  Murray A Reicher; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 2.  Eye Movements in Medical Image Perception: A Selective Review of Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Chia-Chien Wu; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-20

3.  The effect of expertise, target usefulness and image structure on visual search.

Authors:  Samuel G Robson; Jason M Tangen; Rachel A Searston
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2021-03-12
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.