OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to compare gesture-function mappings for experts and novices using a 3D, vision-based, gestural input system when exposed to the same context of anesthesia tasks in the operating room (OR). BACKGROUND: 3D, vision-based, gestural input systems can serve as a natural way to interact with computers and are potentially useful in sterile environments (e.g., ORs) to limit the spread of bacteria. Anesthesia providers' hands have been linked to bacterial transfer in the OR, but a gestural input system for anesthetic tasks has not been investigated. METHODS: A repeated-measures study was conducted with two cohorts: anesthesia providers (i.e., experts) ( N = 16) and students (i.e., novices) ( N = 30). Participants chose gestures for 10 anesthetic functions across three blocks to determine intuitive gesture-function mappings. Reaction time was collected as a complementary measure for understanding the mappings. RESULTS: The two gesture-function mapping sets showed some similarities and differences. The gesture mappings of the anesthesia providers showed a relationship to physical components in the anesthesia environment that were not seen in the students' gestures. The students also exhibited evidence related to longer reaction times compared to the anesthesia providers. CONCLUSION: Domain expertise is influential when creating gesture-function mappings. However, both experts and novices should be able to use a gesture system intuitively, so development methods need to be refined for considering the needs of different user groups. APPLICATION: The development of a touchless interface for perioperative anesthesia may reduce bacterial contamination and eventually offer a reduced risk of infection to patients.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to compare gesture-function mappings for experts and novices using a 3D, vision-based, gestural input system when exposed to the same context of anesthesia tasks in the operating room (OR). BACKGROUND: 3D, vision-based, gestural input systems can serve as a natural way to interact with computers and are potentially useful in sterile environments (e.g., ORs) to limit the spread of bacteria. Anesthesia providers' hands have been linked to bacterial transfer in the OR, but a gestural input system for anesthetic tasks has not been investigated. METHODS: A repeated-measures study was conducted with two cohorts: anesthesia providers (i.e., experts) ( N = 16) and students (i.e., novices) ( N = 30). Participants chose gestures for 10 anesthetic functions across three blocks to determine intuitive gesture-function mappings. Reaction time was collected as a complementary measure for understanding the mappings. RESULTS: The two gesture-function mapping sets showed some similarities and differences. The gesture mappings of the anesthesia providers showed a relationship to physical components in the anesthesia environment that were not seen in the students' gestures. The students also exhibited evidence related to longer reaction times compared to the anesthesia providers. CONCLUSION: Domain expertise is influential when creating gesture-function mappings. However, both experts and novices should be able to use a gesture system intuitively, so development methods need to be refined for considering the needs of different user groups. APPLICATION: The development of a touchless interface for perioperative anesthesia may reduce bacterial contamination and eventually offer a reduced risk of infection to patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
anesthesiology and perioperative care; expertise; gestures; human-computer interaction