Reduction of visual acuity decreases capacity to evaluate radiographic image quality.

INTRODUCTION To determine the impact of reduced visual acuity on the evaluation of a test object and appendicular radiographs. METHODS Visual acuity was reduced by two different magnitudes using simulation glasses and compared to normal vision (no glasses). During phase one phantom images were produced for the purpose of counting objects by 13 observers and on phase 2 image appraisal of anatomical structures was performed on anonymized radiographic images by 7 observers. The monitors were calibrated (SMPTE RP133 test pattern) and the room lighting was maintained at 7 ± 1 lux. Image display and data on grading were managed using ViewDEX (v.2.0) and the area under the visual grading characteristic (AUCVGC) was calculated using VGC Analyzer (v1.0.2). Inferential statistics were calculated using SPSS. RESULTS For the evaluation of appendicular radiographs the total interpretation time was longer when visual acuity was reduced with 2 pairs of simulation glasses (15.4 versus 8.9 min). Visual grading analysis showed that observers can lose the ability to detect anatomical and contrast differences when they have a simulated visual acuity reduction, being more challenging to differentiate low contrast details. No simulation glasses, compared to 1 pair gives an AUCVGC of 0.302 (0.280, 0.333), that decreases to 0.197 (0.175, 0.223) when using 2 pairs of glasses. CONCLUSIONS Reduced visual acuity has a significant negative impact on the evaluation of test objects and clinical images. Further work is required to test the impact of reduced visual acuity on visual search, technical evaluation of a wider range of images as well as pathology detection/characterization performance. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE It seems that visual performance needs to be considered to reduce the risks associated with incomplete or incorrect diagnosis. If employers or professional bodies were to introduce regular eye tests into health screening it may reduce the risk of misinterpretation as a result of poor vision.

[1]  Svein Magnussen,et al.  VDU work, contrast adaptation, and visual fatigue , 1992 .

[2]  Khan M. Siddiqui,et al.  Vision and quality in the digital imaging environment: how much does the visual acuity of radiologists vary at an intermediate distance? , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  P. Hogg,et al.  Visual Function Assessment in Medical Imaging Research. , 2015, Radiologic technology.

[4]  P. McGraw,et al.  Should there be a visual standard for ophthalmologists and other surgeons? , 2010, Postgraduate Medical Journal.

[5]  Mark F McEntee,et al.  Variations in performance of LCDs are still evident after DICOM gray-scale standard display calibration. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  The Effects of Ambient Lighting in Chest Radiology Reading Rooms , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[7]  B. Snaith,et al.  Radiographer interpretation of trauma radiographs: Issues for radiography education providers , 2009 .

[8]  Peter G. J. Barten,et al.  Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its e ects on image quality , 1999 .

[9]  Magnus Båth,et al.  VIEWDEX: an efficient and easy-to-use software for observer performance studies. , 2010, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[10]  Bruce I. Reiner,et al.  Real-Time Occupational Stress and Fatigue Measurement in Medical Imaging Practice , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[11]  D J McIlgorm,et al.  DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated medical grade monitor vs a DICOM part 14: GSDF-calibrated "commercial off-the-shelf" (COTS) monitor for viewing 8-bit dental images. , 2015, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[12]  S. Johansen,et al.  Curricula, attributes and clinical experiences of radiography programs in four European educational institutions. , 2018, Radiography.

[13]  T. Donovan,et al.  Performance changes in lung nodule detection following perceptual feedback of eye movements , 2008, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[14]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Impact of visual fatigue on observer performance , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[15]  David J Manning,et al.  Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  A. Karatepe,et al.  Factors Affecting Contrast Sensitivity in Healthy Individuals: A Pilot Study , 2017, Turkish journal of ophthalmology.

[17]  Eberhard Ludewig,et al.  Diagnostic imaging – evaluating image quality using visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis , 2010, Veterinary Research Communications.

[18]  W Jaschinski-Kruza,et al.  Visual strain during VDU work: the effect of viewing distance and dark focus. , 1988, Ergonomics.

[19]  B. Snaith,et al.  Radiographer reporting in the UK: A longitudinal analysis , 2015 .

[20]  Jonny Hansson,et al.  THE VALIDITY OF USING ROC SOFTWARE FOR ANALYSING VISUAL GRADING CHARACTERISTICS DATA: AN INVESTIGATION BASED ON THE NOVEL SOFTWARE VGC ANALYZER. , 2016, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[21]  Ranjit Kumar,et al.  Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners , 1999 .

[22]  Jonny Hansson,et al.  VGC ANALYZER: A SOFTWARE FOR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF FULLY CROSSED MULTIPLE-READER MULTIPLE-CASE VISUAL GRADING CHARACTERISTICS STUDIES. , 2016, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[23]  Cláudia Sá dos Reis.  Equipment Quality Control , 2015 .

[24]  P. Hogg,et al.  A method to determine the impact of reduced visual function on nodule detection performance. , 2017, Radiography.

[25]  N. Shiner,et al.  The use of simulation and moulage in undergraduate diagnostic radiography education: A burns scenario. , 2019, Radiography.

[26]  G. Lennerstrand,et al.  AGE VARIATIONS IN NORMAL HUMAN CONTRAST SENSITIVITY , 1979, Acta ophthalmologica.

[27]  Bruce I. Reiner,et al.  Demystifying Occupational Stress and Fatigue Through the Creation of an Adaptive End-User Profiling System , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[28]  Yukio Akashi,et al.  Impact of Surrounding Illumination on Visual Fatigue and Eyestrain While Viewing Television , 2006 .

[29]  Peter G. J. Barten,et al.  Physical model for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[30]  K. Latham,et al.  Meeting the UK driving vision standards with reduced contrast sensitivity , 2016, Eye.

[31]  T. Crawford,et al.  How do radiologists do it? The influence of experience and training on searching for chest nodules. , 2006 .

[32]  Elizabeth A Krupinski,et al.  A Systematic Review of Fatigue in Radiology: Is It a Problem? , 2018, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[33]  Malur K. Sundareshan,et al.  Adaptive image contrast enhancement based on human visual properties , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[34]  Magnus Båth,et al.  ViewDEX 2.0: a Java-based DICOM-compatible software for observer performance studies , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[35]  Helle Precht,et al.  Radiographers' perspectives' on Visual Grading Analysis as a scientific method to evaluate image quality. , 2019, Radiography.

[36]  K. Latham,et al.  The Level of Vision Necessary for Competitive Performance in Rifle Shooting: Setting the Standards for Paralympic Shooting with Vision Impairment , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[37]  David Manning,et al.  Successful reporting by non-medical practitioners such as radiographers, will always be task-specific and limited in scope , 2006 .

[38]  S Gur,et al.  Objective evaluation of visual fatigue in VDU workers. , 1994, Occupational medicine.

[39]  B. Snaith,et al.  Developing radiographer roles in the context of advanced and consultant practice , 2013, Journal of medical radiation sciences.