David Black1,2,3, Christian Hansen4, Arya Nabavi5, Ron Kikinis6,7,8, Horst Hahn9,7. 1. Medical Image Computing, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. david.black@mevis.fraunhofer.de. 2. Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany. david.black@mevis.fraunhofer.de. 3. Fraunhofer Institute for Medical Image Computing MEVIS, Bremen, Germany. david.black@mevis.fraunhofer.de. 4. Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 5. International Neuroscience Institute, Hannover, Germany. 6. Medical Image Computing, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany. 7. Fraunhofer Institute for Medical Image Computing MEVIS, Bremen, Germany. 8. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This article investigates the current state of the art of the use of auditory display in image-guided medical interventions. Auditory display is a means of conveying information using sound, and we review the use of this approach to support navigated interventions. We discuss the benefits and drawbacks of published systems and outline directions for future investigation. METHODS: We undertook a review of scientific articles on the topic of auditory rendering in image-guided intervention. This includes methods for avoidance of risk structures and instrument placement and manipulation. The review did not include auditory display for status monitoring, for instance in anesthesia. RESULTS: We identified 15 publications in the course of the search. Most of the literature (60%) investigates the use of auditory display to convey distance of a tracked instrument to an object using proximity or safety margins. The remainder discuss continuous guidance for navigated instrument placement. Four of the articles present clinical evaluations, 11 present laboratory evaluations, and 3 present informal evaluation (2 present both laboratory and clinical evaluations). CONCLUSION: Auditory display is a growing field that has been largely neglected in research in image-guided intervention. Despite benefits of auditory displays reported in both the reviewed literature and non-medical fields, adoption in medicine has been slow. Future challenges include increasing interdisciplinary cooperation with auditory display investigators to develop more meaningful auditory display designs and comprehensive evaluations which target the benefits and drawbacks of auditory display in image guidance.
PURPOSE: This article investigates the current state of the art of the use of auditory display in image-guided medical interventions. Auditory display is a means of conveying information using sound, and we review the use of this approach to support navigated interventions. We discuss the benefits and drawbacks of published systems and outline directions for future investigation. METHODS: We undertook a review of scientific articles on the topic of auditory rendering in image-guided intervention. This includes methods for avoidance of risk structures and instrument placement and manipulation. The review did not include auditory display for status monitoring, for instance in anesthesia. RESULTS: We identified 15 publications in the course of the search. Most of the literature (60%) investigates the use of auditory display to convey distance of a tracked instrument to an object using proximity or safety margins. The remainder discuss continuous guidance for navigated instrument placement. Four of the articles present clinical evaluations, 11 present laboratory evaluations, and 3 present informal evaluation (2 present both laboratory and clinical evaluations). CONCLUSION: Auditory display is a growing field that has been largely neglected in research in image-guided intervention. Despite benefits of auditory displays reported in both the reviewed literature and non-medical fields, adoption in medicine has been slow. Future challenges include increasing interdisciplinary cooperation with auditory display investigators to develop more meaningful auditory display designs and comprehensive evaluations which target the benefits and drawbacks of auditory display in image guidance.
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: Vanessa M Banz; Philip C Müller; Pascale Tinguely; Daniel Inderbitzin; Delphine Ribes; Matthias Peterhans; Daniel Candinas; Stefan Weber Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 3.445
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: Jessica Burgner; D Caleb Rucker; Hunter B Gilbert; Philip J Swaney; Paul T Russell; Kyle D Weaver; Robert J Webster Journal: IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 5.303
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