Current perspectives in medical image perception

Medical images constitute a core portion of the information a physician utilizes to render diagnostic and treatment decisions. At a fundamental level, this diagnostic process involves two basic processes: visually inspecting the image (visual perception) and rendering an interpretation (cognition). The likelihood of error in the interpretation of medical images is, unfortunately, not negligible. Errors do occur, and patients’ lives are impacted, underscoring our need to understand how physicians interact with the information in an image during the interpretation process. With improved understanding, we can develop ways to further improve decision making and, thus, to improve patient care. The science of medical image perception is dedicated to understanding and improving the clinical interpretation process.

[1]  Xin He,et al.  The Validity of Three-Class Hotelling Trace (3-HT) in Describing Three-Class Task Performance: Comparison of Three-Class Volume Under ROC Surface (VUS) and 3-HT , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Influence of 8-bit vs. 11-bit digital displays on observer performance and visual search: A multi-center evaluation , 2007 .

[3]  D P Chakraborty,et al.  Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data. , 1989, Medical physics.

[4]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques , 2009 .

[5]  W E CHAMBERLAIN,et al.  Descriptive classification of pulmonary shadows; a revelation of unreliability in the roentgenographic diagnosis of tuberculosis. , 1954, American review of tuberculosis.

[6]  Leonard Berlin,et al.  Accuracy of diagnostic procedures: has it improved over the past five decades? , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  Charles E. Metz,et al.  Optimization of Restricted ROC Surfaces in Three-Class Classification Tasks , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[8]  Dorothy Wallace,et al.  Audit of the change in the on-call practices in neuroradiology and factors affecting it , 2006, BMC Medical Imaging.

[9]  B. Forster,et al.  Prevalence of eye strain among radiologists: influence of viewing variables on symptoms. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  Y. Nakajima,et al.  Radiologist supply and workload: international comparison , 2008, Radiation Medicine.

[11]  Timothy J Carroll,et al.  Trends in on-call workload in an academic medical center radiology department 1998-20021. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[12]  Leonard Berlin,et al.  Malpractice Issues in Radiology , 1998 .

[13]  S. Barter,et al.  The Service Review Committee: Royal College of Radiologists. Philosophy, role, and lessons to be learned. , 2008, Clinical radiology.

[14]  R. Swensson Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. , 1996, Medical physics.

[15]  W E CHAMBERLAIN,et al.  Tuberculosis case finding; a comparison of the effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods. , 1947, Journal of the American Medical Association.

[16]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Proper ROC analysis and joint ROC analysis of the satisfaction of search effect in chest radiology. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[17]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  The place of medical image perception in 21st-century health care. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[18]  Kevin S. Berbaum,et al.  Does reader visual fatigue impact interpretation accuracy? , 2010, Medical Imaging.

[19]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Enhancing recognition of lesions in radiographic images using perceptual feedback , 1998 .

[20]  Jonathan H Sunshine,et al.  Determinants of radiologists' desired workloads. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[21]  Kristine A. Erps,et al.  Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: prospects for the future. , 2009, Human pathology.

[22]  Lansing G. Ellsworth,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy and image quality using a digital camera for teledermatology. , 1999, Telemedicine journal : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[23]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[24]  Leonard Berlin,et al.  Errors of omission. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  Sheldon M. Ebenholtz,et al.  Oculomotor Systems and Perception , 2001 .

[26]  Xin He,et al.  Three-Class ROC Analysis—Toward a General Decision Theoretic Solution , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[27]  Leonard Berlin Malpractice issues in radiology: res ipsa loquitur. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[28]  W. J. Tuddenham,et al.  Visual search patterns in roentgen diagnosis. , 1961, Radiology.

[29]  M. Thakur,et al.  Genomic biomarkers for molecular imaging: predicting the future. , 2009, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

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

[31]  H L Kundel,et al.  Searching for bone fractures: a comparison with pulmonary nodule search. , 1994, Academic radiology.

[32]  Harold L. Kundel Peripheral vision, structured noise and film reader error. , 1975 .

[33]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Searching for lung nodules. Visual dwell indicates locations of false-positive and false-negative decisions. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[34]  Jin Mo Goo,et al.  Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. , 2004, Radiology.

[35]  Marcus J. Smith ERROR AND VARIATION IN DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY , 1968 .

[36]  Kevin S. Berbaum,et al.  A contaminated binormal model for ROC data , 2000 .

[37]  D. Chakraborty,et al.  Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. , 1990, Radiology.

[38]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Evaluation of proscriptive health care policy implementation in screening mammography. , 2003, Radiology.

[39]  E A Krupinski,et al.  Perception research in medical imaging. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[40]  C. Metz,et al.  Comments on the generalization of receiver operating characteristic analysis to detection and localization tasks. , 1977, Physics in medicine and biology.

[41]  Janice Honeyman-Buck,et al.  Storage and Database , 2000 .

[42]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Anniversary paper: evaluation of medical imaging systems. , 2008, Medical physics.

[43]  E. Conant,et al.  How experience and training influence mammography expertise. , 1999, Academic radiology.

[44]  C. Metz,et al.  Visual detection and localization of radiographic images. , 1975, Radiology.

[45]  Richard L. Van Metter,et al.  Handbook of Medical Imaging , 2009 .

[46]  L. Garland On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. , 1949, Radiology.

[47]  C. Nodine,et al.  Using eye movements to study visual search and to improve tumor detection. , 1987, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[48]  C. Rutter,et al.  Bootstrap estimation of diagnostic accuracy with patient-clustered data. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[49]  Kevin S. Berbaum,et al.  Double mammography diagnostic accuracySatisfaction of Search in Multitrauma Patients: Severity of Detected Fractures1 , 2007 .

[50]  Jonathan H Sunshine,et al.  Update on the diagnostic radiology employment market: findings through 2005. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[51]  Maria Kallergi,et al.  Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. , 2007, Radiology.

[52]  William Mackenzie,et al.  On Asthenopia, or Weak-Sightedness , 1843, Edinburgh medical and surgical journal.

[53]  John F. Hamilton,et al.  A Free Response Approach To The Measurement And Characterization Of Radiographic Observer Performance , 1977, Other Conferences.

[54]  Ying Lu,et al.  An update survey of academic radiologists' clinical productivity. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[55]  P F Judy,et al.  Detection of noisy visual targets: Models for the effects of spatial uncertainty and signal-to-noise ratio , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[56]  C. Metz,et al.  "Proper" Binormal ROC Curves: Theory and Maximum-Likelihood Estimation. , 1999, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[57]  C E Metz,et al.  The "proper" binormal model: parametric receiver operating characteristic curve estimation with degenerate data. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[58]  Mythreyi Bhargavan,et al.  Workload of radiologists in the United States in 2002-2003 and trends since 1991-1992. , 2005, Radiology.

[59]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. , 1993 .

[60]  Edmund A Franken,et al.  Satisfaction of search in multitrauma patients: severity of detected fractures. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[61]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. , 2007, Medical physics.

[62]  W. J. Tuddenham Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Studies of the psycho-physiology of roentgen image perception. , 1962, Radiology.

[63]  P J Lund,et al.  Comparison of conventional and computed radiography: assessment of image quality and reader performance in skeletal extremity trauma. , 1997, Academic radiology.

[64]  H L Kundel,et al.  Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. , 1978, Investigative radiology.

[65]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Visual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[66]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Chapter 2: Clinical applications in telemedicine/telehealth , 2002 .

[67]  Harold L. Kundel,et al.  Perception Errors in Chest Radiography , 1989 .

[68]  N A Obuchowski,et al.  Data analysis for detection and localization of multiple abnormalities with application to mammography. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[69]  Claudia Mello-Thoms,et al.  Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[70]  Jonathan H Sunshine,et al.  Update on the diagnostic radiology employment market: findings through 2007-2008. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[71]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  The Medical Image Perception Society update on key issues for image perception research. , 2009, Radiology.

[72]  Harold L. Kundel,et al.  Physics and psychophysics , 2000 .

[73]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

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

[75]  T. Donovan,et al.  Detection or decision errors? Missed lung cancer from the posteroanterior chest radiograph. , 2004, The British journal of radiology.

[76]  K S Berbaum,et al.  A contaminated binormal model for ROC data: Part II. A formal model. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[77]  Emily F Conant,et al.  Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[78]  Lorenzo L. Pesce,et al.  Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of "proper" binormal ROC curves. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[79]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Eye-movement study and human performance using telepathology virtual slides: implications for medical education and differences with experience. , 2006, Human pathology.

[80]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[81]  E. Åhsberg Dimensions of fatigue in different working populations. , 2000, Scandinavian journal of psychology.