A search model and figure of merit for observer data acquired according to the free-response paradigm.

Search is a basic activity that is performed routinely in many different tasks. In the context of medical imaging it involves locating lesions in images under conditions of uncertainty regarding the number and locations of lesions that may be present. A search model is presented that applies to situations, as in the free-response paradigm, where on each image the number of normal regions that could be mistaken for lesions is unknown, and the number of observer generated localizations of suspicious regions (marks) is unpredictable. The search model is based on a two-stage model that has been proposed in the literature, according to which, at the first stage (the preattentive stage) the observer uses mainly peripheral vision to identify likely lesion candidates, and at the second stage the observer decides (i.e., cognitively evaluates) whether or not to report the candidates. The search model regards the unpredictable numbers of lesion and non-lesion localizations as random variables and models them via appropriate statistical distributions. The model has three parameters quantifying the lesion signal-to-noise ratio, the observer's expertise at rejecting non-lesion locations, and the observer's expertise at finding lesions. A figure-of-merit quantifying the observer's search performance is described. The search model bears a close resemblance to the initial detection and candidate analysis (IDCA) model that has been recently proposed for analysing computer aided detection (CAD) algorithms. The ability to analytically model and quantify the search process would enable more powerful assessment and optimization of performance in these activities, which could be highly significant.

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

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

[3]  Marilyn L. Shaw,et al.  Visual search in multicharacter arrays with and without gaps , 1979 .

[4]  J M Wolfe,et al.  Search for multiple targets: Remember the targets, forget the search , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  A. Hillstrom Repetition effects in visual search , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[7]  Darrin C. Edwards,et al.  Maximum likelihood fitting of FROC curves under an initial-detection-and-candidate-analysis model. , 2002, Medical physics.

[8]  Andrew T. Duchowski,et al.  Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice , 2003, Springer London.

[9]  D. Dorfman,et al.  Maximum-likelihood estimation of parameters of signal-detection theory and determination of confidence intervals—Rating-method data , 1969 .

[10]  Richard G. Swensson,et al.  A two-stage detection model applied to skilled visual search by radiologists , 1980 .

[11]  C. Metz ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[12]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  The psychophysics of visual search , 2000, Vision Research.

[13]  James P. Egan,et al.  Operating Characteristics, Signal Detectability, and the Method of Free Response , 1961 .

[14]  Anna Bornefalk Hermansson,et al.  On the comparison of FROC curves in mammography CAD systems. , 2005, Medical physics.

[15]  C E Metz,et al.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[16]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

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

[18]  R. G. Fraser,et al.  Digital and conventional chest imaging: a modified ROC study of observer performance using simulated nodules. , 1986, Radiology.

[19]  Barbara L. Chalfonte,et al.  Sum-Difference Theory of Remembering and Knowing : A Two-Dimensional Signal-Detection Model By : , 2004 .

[20]  J. P. Thomas,et al.  A signal detection model predicts the effects of set size on visual search accuracy for feature, conjunction, triple conjunction, and disjunction displays , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  Kevin S. Berbaum,et al.  Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. , 1989 .

[22]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Watching Single Cells Pay Attention , 2005, Science.

[23]  David Gur,et al.  A comparison of two data analyses from two observer performance studies using Jackknife ROC and JAFROC. , 2005, Medical physics.

[24]  Harold L. Kundel,et al.  Modeling visual search during mammogram viewing , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[25]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  A. Burgess Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. , 1995, Medical physics.

[27]  H L Kundel,et al.  A visual concept shapes image perception. , 1983, Radiology.

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

[29]  Laurie L Fajardo,et al.  Free-response receiver operating characteristic evaluation of lossy JPEG2000 and object-based set partitioning in hierarchical trees compression of digitized mammograms. , 2005, Radiology.

[30]  D. Chakraborty ROC curves predicted by a model of visual search , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[31]  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.

[32]  J E Hoffman,et al.  Search through a sequentially presented visual display , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Assessment of medical imaging and computer-assist systems: lessons from recent experience. , 2002, Academic radiology.