Name
Title | ||
|---|---|---|
A pilot study of eye movement during mammography interpretation: Eyetracker results and workstation design implications. |
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- × 5k-pixel
mammograms on two to four 2k- × 2.5k-pixel monitors is problematic because of the time spent in choosing which images to 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 images 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
applicatity of time-motion analysis to mammographic workstation design. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
1997 | 10.1007/BF03168545 | J. Digital Imaging |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
eyetracking,digital mammography,image display | Computer terminal,Digital mammography,Mammography,Computer vision,Computer graphics (images),Computer science,Zoom,Workstation,Response time,Eye movement,Artificial intelligence,Roaming | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
10 | 1 | 0897-1889 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
5 | 1.14 | 0 |
Authors | ||
8 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| David V. Beard | 1 | 47 | 10.82 |
| Peter Bream | 2 | 5 | 1.14 |
| Etta D. Pisano | 3 | 344 | 49.06 |
| Pat Conroy | 4 | 9 | 27.19 |
| R. Eugene Johnston | 5 | 118 | 15.87 |
| Patricia Breauning | 6 | 5 | 1.14 |
| Robert McLelland | 7 | 14 | 4.77 |
| Richard Clark | 8 | 5 | 1.14 |