David Black1,2,3, Julian Hettig4, Maria Luz4, Christian Hansen4, Ron Kikinis5,6,7, Horst Hahn8,6. 1. Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany. david.black@mevis.fraunhofer.de. 2. Medical Image Computing, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. david.black@mevis.fraunhofer.de. 3. Fraunhofer MEVIS, Bremen, Germany. david.black@mevis.fraunhofer.de. 4. Faculty of Computer Science, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 5. Medical Image Computing, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. 6. Fraunhofer MEVIS, Bremen, Germany. 7. Surgical Planning Laboratory, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: During medical needle placement using image-guided navigation systems, the clinician must concentrate on a screen. To reduce the clinician's visual reliance on the screen, this work proposes an auditory feedback method as a stand-alone method or to support visual feedback for placing the navigated medical instrument, in this case a needle. METHODS: An auditory synthesis model using pitch comparison and stereo panning parameter mapping was developed to augment or replace visual feedback for navigated needle placement. In contrast to existing approaches which augment but still require a visual display, this method allows view-free needle placement. An evaluation with 12 novice participants compared both auditory and combined audiovisual feedback against existing visual methods. RESULTS: Using combined audiovisual display, participants show similar task completion times and report similar subjective workload and accuracy while viewing the screen less compared to using the conventional visual method. The auditory feedback leads to higher task completion times and subjective workload compared to both combined and visual feedback. CONCLUSION: Audiovisual feedback shows promising results and establishes a basis for applying auditory feedback as a supplement to visual information to other navigated interventions, especially those for which viewing a patient is beneficial or necessary.
PURPOSE: During medical needle placement using image-guided navigation systems, the clinician must concentrate on a screen. To reduce the clinician's visual reliance on the screen, this work proposes an auditory feedback method as a stand-alone method or to support visual feedback for placing the navigated medical instrument, in this case a needle. METHODS: An auditory synthesis model using pitch comparison and stereo panning parameter mapping was developed to augment or replace visual feedback for navigated needle placement. In contrast to existing approaches which augment but still require a visual display, this method allows view-free needle placement. An evaluation with 12 novice participants compared both auditory and combined audiovisual feedback against existing visual methods. RESULTS: Using combined audiovisual display, participants show similar task completion times and report similar subjective workload and accuracy while viewing the screen less compared to using the conventional visual method. The auditory feedback leads to higher task completion times and subjective workload compared to both combined and visual feedback. CONCLUSION: Audiovisual feedback shows promising results and establishes a basis for applying auditory feedback as a supplement to visual information to other navigated interventions, especially those for which viewing a patient is beneficial or necessary.
Authors: Benjamin J Dixon; Harley Chan; Michael J Daly; Allan D Vescan; Ian J Witterick; Jonathan C Irish Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: P W A Willems; H J Noordmans; J J van Overbeeke; M A Viergever; C A F Tulleken; J W Berkelbach van der Sprenkel Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.216
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
Authors: Christian Hansen; Jan Wieferich; Felix Ritter; Christian Rieder; Heinz-Otto Peitgen Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2009-06-19 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Benjamin J Dixon; Michael J Daly; Harley Chan; Allan D Vescan; Ian J Witterick; Jonathan C Irish Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Stephan K Haerle; Michael J Daly; Harley Chan; Allan Vescan; Ian Witterick; Fred Gentili; Gelareh Zadeh; Walter Kucharczyk; Jonathan C Irish Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Eduard H J Voormolen; Peter A Woerdeman; Marijn van Stralen; Herke Jan Noordmans; Max A Viergever; Luca Regli; Jan Willem Berkelbach van der Sprenkel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: David Black; Michael Unger; Nele Fischer; Ron Kikinis; Horst Hahn; Thomas Neumuth; Bernhard Glaser Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Milovan Regodić; Zoltán Bárdosi; Georgi Diakov; Malik Galijašević; Christian F Freyschlag; Wolfgang Freysinger Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2021-04-08 Impact factor: 2.924