Literature DB >> 34743266

Comparable prediction of breast cancer risk from a glimpse or a first impression of a mammogram.

E M Raat1, I Farr2, J M Wolfe3, K K Evans2.   

Abstract

Expert radiologists can discern normal from abnormal mammograms with above-chance accuracy after brief (e.g. 500 ms) exposure. They can even predict cancer risk viewing currently normal images (priors) from women who will later develop cancer. This involves a rapid, global, non-selective process called "gist extraction". It is not yet known whether prolonged exposure can strengthen the gist signal, or if it is available solely in the early exposure. This is of particular interest for the priors that do not contain any localizable signal of abnormality. The current study compared performance with brief (500 ms) or unlimited exposure for four types of mammograms (normal, abnormal, contralateral, priors). Groups of expert radiologists and untrained observers were tested. As expected, radiologists outperformed naïve participants. Replicating prior work, they exceeded chance performance though the gist signal was weak. However, we found no consistent performance differences in radiologists or naïves between timing conditions. Exposure time neither increased nor decreased ability to identify the gist of abnormality or predict cancer risk. If gist signals are to have a place in cancer risk assessments, more efforts should be made to strengthen the signal.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gestalt; Gist; Holistic impression; Mammography; Radiology

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34743266      PMCID: PMC8572261          DOI: 10.1186/s41235-021-00339-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic        ISSN: 2365-7464


  31 in total

1.  Interpreting chest radiographs without visual search.

Authors:  H L Kundel; C F Nodine
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation.

Authors:  Calvin F Nodine; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Harold L Kundel; Susan P Weinstein
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times.

Authors:  Eric A Berns; R Edward Hendrick; Mariana Solari; Lora Barke; Denise Reddy; Judith Wolfman; Lewis Segal; Patricia DeLeon; Stefanie Benjamin; Laura Willis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.

Authors:  Mohammad A Rawashdeh; Warwick B Lee; Roger M Bourne; Elaine A Ryan; Mariusz W Pietrzyk; Warren M Reed; Robert C Heard; Deborah A Black; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time.

Authors:  D Bernardi; S Ciatto; M Pellegrini; V Anesi; S Burlon; E Cauli; M Depaoli; L Larentis; V Malesani; L Targa; P Baldo; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Influence of spatial frequency, luminance, and duration on binocular rivalry and abnormal fusion of briefly presented dichoptic stimuli.

Authors:  J M Wolfe
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 1.490

7.  A half-second glimpse often lets radiologists identify breast cancer cases even when viewing the mammogram of the opposite breast.

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Tamara Miner Haygood; Julie Cooper; Anne-Marie Culpan; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: seeing the forest without representing the trees.

Authors:  Michelle R Greene; Aude Oliva
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2008-08-30       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Detecting the "gist" of breast cancer in mammograms three years before localized signs of cancer are visible.

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Anne-Marie Culpan; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 10.  The Holistic Processing Account of Visual Expertise in Medical Image Perception: A Review.

Authors:  Heather Sheridan; Eyal M Reingold
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-09-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.