A laboratory evaluation of an auditory display designed to enhance intraoperative monitoring

Robert G Loeb, W. Tecumseh Fitch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Encouraged by the popularity of the pulse oximeter pulse-tone, we developed and tested an auditory display of six physiologic variables. The display consisted of a cardiovascular sound triggered by every heartbeat (conveying heart rate) and a respiratory sound triggered by every breath (conveying respiratory rate). Attributes of the cardiovascular sound were modulated to convey hemoglobin saturation and blood pressure, and those of the respiratory sound were modulated to denote end-tidal CO2 and tidal volume. Three display formats (auditory, visual, and combined) were compared. Fourteen anesthesia residents monitored dynamic displays of 6 variables to detect and identify 6 predefined events during 21 trials. An event occurred during each trial and the subject's task was to detect when it started and then identify the type of event. Subjects detected every event. They detected events more rapidly with the combined display (10.4 s) than with the visual (12.8 s) or auditory (13.0 s) displays. Subjects correctly identified events least often with the auditory display (60% versus visual 88% and combined 80%). They correctly identified events more quickly with the combined display than with the visual display. We conclude that, with little training, clinicians can successfully detect and identify simulated clinical events using an auditory display of six variables.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)362-368
Number of pages7
JournalAnesthesia and Analgesia
Volume94
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Intraoperative Monitoring
Respiratory Sounds
Tidal Volume
Respiratory Rate
Hemoglobins
Anesthesia
Heart Rate
Blood Pressure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

A laboratory evaluation of an auditory display designed to enhance intraoperative monitoring. / Loeb, Robert G; Fitch, W. Tecumseh.

In: Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 94, No. 2, 2002, p. 362-368.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8ad744ac2042421f8c19ad726bdce933,
title = "A laboratory evaluation of an auditory display designed to enhance intraoperative monitoring",
abstract = "Encouraged by the popularity of the pulse oximeter pulse-tone, we developed and tested an auditory display of six physiologic variables. The display consisted of a cardiovascular sound triggered by every heartbeat (conveying heart rate) and a respiratory sound triggered by every breath (conveying respiratory rate). Attributes of the cardiovascular sound were modulated to convey hemoglobin saturation and blood pressure, and those of the respiratory sound were modulated to denote end-tidal CO2 and tidal volume. Three display formats (auditory, visual, and combined) were compared. Fourteen anesthesia residents monitored dynamic displays of 6 variables to detect and identify 6 predefined events during 21 trials. An event occurred during each trial and the subject's task was to detect when it started and then identify the type of event. Subjects detected every event. They detected events more rapidly with the combined display (10.4 s) than with the visual (12.8 s) or auditory (13.0 s) displays. Subjects correctly identified events least often with the auditory display (60{\%} versus visual 88{\%} and combined 80{\%}). They correctly identified events more quickly with the combined display than with the visual display. We conclude that, with little training, clinicians can successfully detect and identify simulated clinical events using an auditory display of six variables.",
author = "Loeb, {Robert G} and Fitch, {W. Tecumseh}",
year = "2002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "362--368",
journal = "Anesthesia and Analgesia",
issn = "0003-2999",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A laboratory evaluation of an auditory display designed to enhance intraoperative monitoring

AU - Loeb, Robert G

AU - Fitch, W. Tecumseh

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Encouraged by the popularity of the pulse oximeter pulse-tone, we developed and tested an auditory display of six physiologic variables. The display consisted of a cardiovascular sound triggered by every heartbeat (conveying heart rate) and a respiratory sound triggered by every breath (conveying respiratory rate). Attributes of the cardiovascular sound were modulated to convey hemoglobin saturation and blood pressure, and those of the respiratory sound were modulated to denote end-tidal CO2 and tidal volume. Three display formats (auditory, visual, and combined) were compared. Fourteen anesthesia residents monitored dynamic displays of 6 variables to detect and identify 6 predefined events during 21 trials. An event occurred during each trial and the subject's task was to detect when it started and then identify the type of event. Subjects detected every event. They detected events more rapidly with the combined display (10.4 s) than with the visual (12.8 s) or auditory (13.0 s) displays. Subjects correctly identified events least often with the auditory display (60% versus visual 88% and combined 80%). They correctly identified events more quickly with the combined display than with the visual display. We conclude that, with little training, clinicians can successfully detect and identify simulated clinical events using an auditory display of six variables.

AB - Encouraged by the popularity of the pulse oximeter pulse-tone, we developed and tested an auditory display of six physiologic variables. The display consisted of a cardiovascular sound triggered by every heartbeat (conveying heart rate) and a respiratory sound triggered by every breath (conveying respiratory rate). Attributes of the cardiovascular sound were modulated to convey hemoglobin saturation and blood pressure, and those of the respiratory sound were modulated to denote end-tidal CO2 and tidal volume. Three display formats (auditory, visual, and combined) were compared. Fourteen anesthesia residents monitored dynamic displays of 6 variables to detect and identify 6 predefined events during 21 trials. An event occurred during each trial and the subject's task was to detect when it started and then identify the type of event. Subjects detected every event. They detected events more rapidly with the combined display (10.4 s) than with the visual (12.8 s) or auditory (13.0 s) displays. Subjects correctly identified events least often with the auditory display (60% versus visual 88% and combined 80%). They correctly identified events more quickly with the combined display than with the visual display. We conclude that, with little training, clinicians can successfully detect and identify simulated clinical events using an auditory display of six variables.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036148885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036148885&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11812700

AN - SCOPUS:0036148885

VL - 94

SP - 362

EP - 368

JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia

JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia

SN - 0003-2999

IS - 2

ER -