Ayoung Lee1,2, Hyunsoo Chung3, Yejin Cho4, Jue Lie Kim1, Jinju Choi1, Eunwoo Lee1, Bokyung Kim1, Soo-Jeong Cho1, Sang Gyun Kim1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. hschungmd@gmail.com. 4. Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lesion detection rate of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) varies depending on the degree of experience of the endoscopist and anatomical blind spots. This study aimed to identify gaze patterns and blind spots by analyzing the endoscopist's gaze during real-time EGD. METHODS: Five endoscopists were enrolled in this study. The endoscopist's eye gaze tracked by an eye tracker was selected from the esophagogastric junction to the second portion of the duodenum without the esophagus during insertion and withdrawal, and then matched with photos. Gaze patterns were visualized as a gaze plot, blind spot detection as a heatmap, observation time (OT), fixation duration (FD), and FD-to-OT ratio. RESULTS: The mean OT and FD were 11.10 ± 11.14 min and 8.37 ± 9.95 min, respectively, and the FD-to-OT ratio was 72.5%. A total of 34.3% of the time was spent observing the antrum. When observing the body of the stomach, it took longer to observe the high body in the retroflexion view and the low-to-mid body in the forward view. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to minimize gaze distraction and observe the posterior wall in the retroflexion view. Our results suggest that eye-tracking techniques may be useful for future endoscopic training and education.
BACKGROUND: The lesion detection rate of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) varies depending on the degree of experience of the endoscopist and anatomical blind spots. This study aimed to identify gaze patterns and blind spots by analyzing the endoscopist's gaze during real-time EGD. METHODS: Five endoscopists were enrolled in this study. The endoscopist's eye gaze tracked by an eye tracker was selected from the esophagogastric junction to the second portion of the duodenum without the esophagus during insertion and withdrawal, and then matched with photos. Gaze patterns were visualized as a gaze plot, blind spot detection as a heatmap, observation time (OT), fixation duration (FD), and FD-to-OT ratio. RESULTS: The mean OT and FD were 11.10 ± 11.14 min and 8.37 ± 9.95 min, respectively, and the FD-to-OT ratio was 72.5%. A total of 34.3% of the time was spent observing the antrum. When observing the body of the stomach, it took longer to observe the high body in the retroflexion view and the low-to-mid body in the forward view. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to minimize gaze distraction and observe the posterior wall in the retroflexion view. Our results suggest that eye-tracking techniques may be useful for future endoscopic training and education.
Authors: Kavel Visrodia; Siddharth Singh; Rajesh Krishnamoorthi; David A Ahlquist; Kenneth K Wang; Prasad G Iyer; David A Katzka Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Georgina Chadwick; Oliver Groene; Stuart Riley; Richard Hardwick; Tom Crosby; Jonathan Hoare; George B Hanna; Kimberley Greenaway; David A Cromwell Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Georgina Chadwick; Oliver Groene; Jonathan Hoare; Richard H Hardwick; Stuart Riley; Tom D Crosby; George B Hanna; David A Cromwell Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 10.093