Literature DB >> 9147523

A pilot study of eye movement during mammography interpretation: eyetracker results and workstation design implications.

D V Beard1, P Bream, E D Pisano, P Conroy, R E Johnston, P Braeuning, R McLelland, R Clark.   

Abstract

Digital mammography can potentially improve mammography image and interpretation quality. On-line interpretation from a workstation may improve interpretation logistics and increase availability of comparison images. Interpretation of eight 4k- x 5k-pixel mammograms on two to four 2k- x 2.5k-pixel monitors is problematic because of the time spent in choosing which images display on which monitors, and zooming and roaming on individual images that are too large to display completely at full resolution. The authors used an eyetracker to measure radiologists viewing behavior during mammography interpretation with film on a viewbox. It was observed that a significant portion of the mammographers' time is spent viewing "comparison pairs" (typically two or more comparisons per case), such as the left mediolateral and craniocaudal images or old and new images. From the eyetracker measurements, we estimated that the number of image display, roam, and zoom operations decreases from an average of 64 for one monitor to 31 for four monitors, with the largest change going from one to two monitors. We also show that fewer monitors with a faster response time is superior to more monitors with a slower response time. Finally, the authors demonstrate the applicability of time-motion analysis to mammographic workstation design.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9147523      PMCID: PMC3453184          DOI: 10.1007/bf03168545

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  13 in total

1.  Prognosis and treatment in minimal breast cancer.

Authors:  T G Frazier; E M Copeland; H S Gallager; D D Paulus; E C White
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1977-06       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 2.  Technologic improvements in screen-film mammography.

Authors:  A G Haus
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Proceedings: Treatment of minimal breast cancer.

Authors:  H J Wanebo; A G Huvos; J A Urban
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1974-02       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Cancer of the breast: size of neoplasm and prognosis.

Authors:  B Fisher; N H Slack; I D Bross
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1969-11       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Physicians' abilities to detect lumps in silicone breast models.

Authors:  S W Fletcher; M S O'Malley; L A Bunce
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1985-04-19       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality.

Authors:  S Shapiro; W Venet; P Strax; L Venet; R Roeser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project: five-year summary report.

Authors:  L H Baker
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1982 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  The Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening for breast cancer: recent results and calculation of benefit.

Authors:  L Tabar; G Fagerberg; S W Duffy; N E Day
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Potential limits of physical examination and breast self-examination in detecting small cancers of the breast. An unselected population-based study of 1302 cases.

Authors:  S L Saltzstein
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1984-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Mammography in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.

Authors:  P C Stomper; R S Gelman
Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 3.722

View more
  4 in total

1.  Iterative interim techniques for reduced costs and a better mammography workstation: an opinion.

Authors:  D V Beard
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Soft copy display requirements for digital mammography.

Authors:  Bradley M Hemminger
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 3.  Review of prospects and challenges of eye tracking in volumetric imaging.

Authors:  Antje C Venjakob; Claudia R Mello-Thoms
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-09-29

4.  CT brush and CancerZap!: two video games for computed tomography dose minimization.

Authors:  Graham Alvare; Richard Gordon
Journal:  Theor Biol Med Model       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 2.432

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.