Literature DB >> 27798745

Diagnostic Accuracy and Visual Search Efficiency: Single 8 MP vs. Dual 5 MP Displays.

Elizabeth A Krupinski1.   

Abstract

This study compared a single 8 MP vs. dual 5 MP displays for diagnostic accuracy, reading time, number of times the readers zoomed/panned images, and visual search. Six radiologists viewed 60 mammographic cases, once on each display. A sub-set of 15 cases was viewed in a secondary study using eye-tracking. For viewing time, there was significant difference (F = 13.901, p = 0.0002), with 8 MP taking less time (62.04 vs. 68.99 s). There was no significant difference (F = 0.254, p = 0.6145) in zoom/pan use (1.94 vs. 1.89). Total number of fixations was significantly (F = 4.073, p = 0.0466) lower with 8 MP (134.47 vs. 154.29). Number of times readers scanned between images was significantly fewer (F = 10.305, p = 0.0018) with 8 MP (6.83 vs. 8.22). Time to first fixate lesion did not differ (F = 0.126, p = 0.7240). It did not take any longer to detect the lesion as a function of the display configuration. Total time spent on lesion did not differ (F = 0.097, p = 0.7567) (8.59 vs. 8.39). Overall, the single 8 MP display yielded the same diagnostic accuracy as the dual 5 MP displays. The lower resolution did not appear to influence the readers' ability to detect and view the lesion details, as the eye-position study showed no differences in time to first fixate or total time on the lesions. Nor did the lower resolution result in significant differences in the amount of zooming and panning that the readers did while viewing the cases.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Digital display; Image perception; Observer performance

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27798745      PMCID: PMC5359202          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-016-9917-6

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


  17 in total

1.  Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting.

Authors:  C Wade; P C Brennan
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Real-time occupational stress and fatigue measurement in medical imaging practice.

Authors:  Elizabeth Krupinski; Bruce I Reiner
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 3.  The insidious problem of fatigue in medical imaging practice.

Authors:  Bruce I Reiner; Elizabeth Krupinski
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 4.  The impact of computer display performance on the quality of digital radiographs: a review.

Authors:  Alison Butt; M Mahoney; N W Savage
Journal:  Aust Dent J       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.291

5.  Factors associated with repetitive strain, and strategies to reduce injury among breast-imaging radiologists.

Authors:  Atalie C Thompson; Marnie J Kremer Prill; Sandip Biswal; Murray Rebner; Rachel E Rebner; William R Thomas; Sonya D Edwards; Matthew O Thompson; Debra M Ikeda
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; Aldo Badano; Dev Chakraborty; Ken Compton; Craig Cornelius; Kevin Corrigan; Michael J Flynn; Bradley Hemminger; Nick Hangiandreou; Jeffrey Johnson; Donna M Moxley-Stevens; William Pavlicek; Hans Roehrig; Lois Rutz; Jeffrey Shepard; Robert A Uzenoff; Jihong Wang; Charles E Willis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 7.  Ergonomics of digital imaging.

Authors:  S P Prabhu; S Gandhi; P R Goddard
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  PACS displays: how to select the right display technology.

Authors:  David S Hirschorn; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Michael J Flynn
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Repetitive stress symptoms in radiology: prevalence and response to ergonomic interventions.

Authors:  Phillip M Boiselle; Deborah Levine; Perry J Horwich; Larry Barbaras; Daniel Siegal; Kathleen Shillue; Dieter Affeln
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  Retrospective review of the drop in observer detection performance over time in lesion-enriched experimental studies.

Authors:  Sian Taylor-Phillips; Markus C Elze; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Kathryn Dennick; Alastair G Gale; Aileen Clarke; Claudia Mello-Thoms
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.056

View more
  1 in total

1.  Impact of room lighting and image display device in the radiographic appearances of the endodontic treatments.

Authors:  Adriana D Cruz; Maria Cn Castro; Marcelo F Aguiar; Ludmilla S Guimarães; Cinthya C Gomes
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 2.419

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.