Literature DB >> 27928658

Analog Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) information can be more effective than binary marks.

Corbin A Cunningham1, Trafton Drew2, Jeremy M Wolfe3,4.   

Abstract

In socially important visual search tasks, such as baggage screening and diagnostic radiology, experts miss more targets than is desirable. Computer-aided detection (CAD) programs have been developed specifically to improve performance in these professional search tasks. For example, in breast cancer screening, many CAD systems are capable of detecting approximately 90% of breast cancer, with approximately 0.5 false-positive detections per image. Nevertheless, benefits of CAD in clinical settings tend to be small (Birdwell, 2009) or even absent (Meziane et al., 2011; Philpotts, 2009). The marks made by a CAD system can be "binary," giving the same signal to any location where the signal is above some threshold. Alternatively, a CAD system presents an analog signal that reflects strength of the signal at a location. In the experiments reported, we compare analog and binary CAD presentations using nonexpert observers and artificial stimuli defined by two noisy signals: a visible color signal and an "invisible" signal that informed our simulated CAD system. We found that analog CAD generally yielded better overall performance than binary CAD. The analog benefit is similar at high and low target prevalence. Our data suggest that the form of the CAD signal can directly influence performance. Analog CAD may allow the computer to be more helpful to the searcher.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attention; CADe; Computer-aided detection; Medical image perception; Visual search

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27928658      PMCID: PMC5303191          DOI: 10.3758/s13414-016-1250-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  48 in total

1.  Radiologist detection of microcalcifications with and without computer-aided detection: a comparative study.

Authors:  R F Brem; J M Schoonjans
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.350

2.  Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Carolyn M Rutter; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Visual search for rare targets: distracter tuning as a mechanism for learning from repeated target-absent searches.

Authors:  Daniel T Levin; Bonnie L Angelone; Melissa R Beck
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  2011-03-11

Review 4.  Can computer-aided detection be detrimental to mammographic interpretation?

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

5.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

6.  False feedback increases detection of low-prevalence targets in visual search.

Authors:  Jeremy Schwark; Joshua Sandry; Justin Macdonald; Igor Dolgov
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists' error rates in screening for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Rosemary H Tambouret; Andrew Evered; David C Wilbur; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.534

8.  Clinically missed cancer: how effectively can radiologists use computer-aided detection?

Authors:  Robert M Nishikawa; Robert A Schmidt; Michael N Linver; Alexandra V Edwards; John Papaioannou; Margaret A Stull
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Michael J Van Wert
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 10.834

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.