Potential workflow advantages with single 8MP versus dual 5MP displays

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

This study compared an 8MP vs dual-5MP displays for diagnostic accuracy, reading time, number of times readers zoomed/panned images, and visual search. Six radiologists viewed 60 mammographic cases, once on each display, 15 with eye-tracking. For viewing time, there was significant difference (F = 13.901, p = 0.0002), with 8MP taking less time (62.04 sec vs 68.99). There was no significant difference (F = 0.254, p = 0.6145) in zoom/pan use (1.94 vs 1.89). Total number of fixations was significantly (F = 4.073, p = 0.0466) lower with 8MP (134.47 vs 154.29). Number of times readers scanned between images was significantly fewer (F = 10.305, p = 0.0018) with single (6.83 vs 8.22). Time to first fixate lesion did not differ (F = 0.126, p = 0.7240). It did not take any longer to detect the lesion as a function of the display configuration. Total time spent on lesion did not differ (F = 0.097, p = 0.7567) (8.59 vs 8.39). Overall the single 8MP display yielded the same diagnostic accuracy as the dual 5MP displays. The lower resolution did not appear to influence the readers' ability to detect and view the lesion details, as the eye-position study showed no differences in time to first fixate or total time on the lesions. Nor did the lower resolution result in significant differences in the amount of zooming and panning that the readers did while viewing the cases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationMedical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
PublisherSPIE
Volume9787
ISBN (Electronic)9781510600225
DOIs
StatePublished - 2016
Externally publishedYes
EventMedical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment - San Diego, United States
Duration: Mar 2 2016Mar 3 2016

Other

OtherMedical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
CountryUnited States
CitySan Diego
Period3/2/163/3/16

Fingerprint

Workflow
Display devices
lesions
readers
Reading

Keywords

  • Bezel
  • Diagnostic accuracy
  • Dual display
  • Single display
  • Visual search

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
  • Electronic, Optical and Magnetic Materials
  • Biomaterials
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Krupinski, E. A. (2016). Potential workflow advantages with single 8MP versus dual 5MP displays. In Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment (Vol. 9787). [978705] SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2207542

Potential workflow advantages with single 8MP versus dual 5MP displays. / Krupinski, Elizabeth A.

Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment. Vol. 9787 SPIE, 2016. 978705.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Krupinski, EA 2016, Potential workflow advantages with single 8MP versus dual 5MP displays. in Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment. vol. 9787, 978705, SPIE, Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, San Diego, United States, 3/2/16. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2207542
Krupinski EA. Potential workflow advantages with single 8MP versus dual 5MP displays. In Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment. Vol. 9787. SPIE. 2016. 978705 https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2207542
Krupinski, Elizabeth A. / Potential workflow advantages with single 8MP versus dual 5MP displays. Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment. Vol. 9787 SPIE, 2016.
@inproceedings{2cf6c93224ff4a9c9a39b9f861520b0d,
title = "Potential workflow advantages with single 8MP versus dual 5MP displays",
abstract = "This study compared an 8MP vs dual-5MP displays for diagnostic accuracy, reading time, number of times readers zoomed/panned images, and visual search. Six radiologists viewed 60 mammographic cases, once on each display, 15 with eye-tracking. For viewing time, there was significant difference (F = 13.901, p = 0.0002), with 8MP taking less time (62.04 sec vs 68.99). There was no significant difference (F = 0.254, p = 0.6145) in zoom/pan use (1.94 vs 1.89). Total number of fixations was significantly (F = 4.073, p = 0.0466) lower with 8MP (134.47 vs 154.29). Number of times readers scanned between images was significantly fewer (F = 10.305, p = 0.0018) with single (6.83 vs 8.22). Time to first fixate lesion did not differ (F = 0.126, p = 0.7240). It did not take any longer to detect the lesion as a function of the display configuration. Total time spent on lesion did not differ (F = 0.097, p = 0.7567) (8.59 vs 8.39). Overall the single 8MP display yielded the same diagnostic accuracy as the dual 5MP displays. The lower resolution did not appear to influence the readers' ability to detect and view the lesion details, as the eye-position study showed no differences in time to first fixate or total time on the lesions. Nor did the lower resolution result in significant differences in the amount of zooming and panning that the readers did while viewing the cases.",
keywords = "Bezel, Diagnostic accuracy, Dual display, Single display, Visual search",
author = "Krupinski, {Elizabeth A}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1117/12.2207542",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9787",
booktitle = "Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment",
publisher = "SPIE",
address = "United States",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Potential workflow advantages with single 8MP versus dual 5MP displays

AU - Krupinski, Elizabeth A

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - This study compared an 8MP vs dual-5MP displays for diagnostic accuracy, reading time, number of times readers zoomed/panned images, and visual search. Six radiologists viewed 60 mammographic cases, once on each display, 15 with eye-tracking. For viewing time, there was significant difference (F = 13.901, p = 0.0002), with 8MP taking less time (62.04 sec vs 68.99). There was no significant difference (F = 0.254, p = 0.6145) in zoom/pan use (1.94 vs 1.89). Total number of fixations was significantly (F = 4.073, p = 0.0466) lower with 8MP (134.47 vs 154.29). Number of times readers scanned between images was significantly fewer (F = 10.305, p = 0.0018) with single (6.83 vs 8.22). Time to first fixate lesion did not differ (F = 0.126, p = 0.7240). It did not take any longer to detect the lesion as a function of the display configuration. Total time spent on lesion did not differ (F = 0.097, p = 0.7567) (8.59 vs 8.39). Overall the single 8MP display yielded the same diagnostic accuracy as the dual 5MP displays. The lower resolution did not appear to influence the readers' ability to detect and view the lesion details, as the eye-position study showed no differences in time to first fixate or total time on the lesions. Nor did the lower resolution result in significant differences in the amount of zooming and panning that the readers did while viewing the cases.

AB - This study compared an 8MP vs dual-5MP displays for diagnostic accuracy, reading time, number of times readers zoomed/panned images, and visual search. Six radiologists viewed 60 mammographic cases, once on each display, 15 with eye-tracking. For viewing time, there was significant difference (F = 13.901, p = 0.0002), with 8MP taking less time (62.04 sec vs 68.99). There was no significant difference (F = 0.254, p = 0.6145) in zoom/pan use (1.94 vs 1.89). Total number of fixations was significantly (F = 4.073, p = 0.0466) lower with 8MP (134.47 vs 154.29). Number of times readers scanned between images was significantly fewer (F = 10.305, p = 0.0018) with single (6.83 vs 8.22). Time to first fixate lesion did not differ (F = 0.126, p = 0.7240). It did not take any longer to detect the lesion as a function of the display configuration. Total time spent on lesion did not differ (F = 0.097, p = 0.7567) (8.59 vs 8.39). Overall the single 8MP display yielded the same diagnostic accuracy as the dual 5MP displays. The lower resolution did not appear to influence the readers' ability to detect and view the lesion details, as the eye-position study showed no differences in time to first fixate or total time on the lesions. Nor did the lower resolution result in significant differences in the amount of zooming and panning that the readers did while viewing the cases.

KW - Bezel

KW - Diagnostic accuracy

KW - Dual display

KW - Single display

KW - Visual search

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84976312772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84976312772&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1117/12.2207542

DO - 10.1117/12.2207542

M3 - Conference contribution

VL - 9787

BT - Medical Imaging 2016: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment

PB - SPIE

ER -