Analog Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) information can be more effective than binary marks

In socially important visual search tasks, such as baggage screening and diagnostic radiology, experts miss more targets than is desirable. Computer-aided detection (CAD) programs have been developed specifically to improve performance in these professional search tasks. For example, in breast cancer screening, many CAD systems are capable of detecting approximately 90% of breast cancer, with approximately 0.5 false-positive detections per image. Nevertheless, benefits of CAD in clinical settings tend to be small (Birdwell, 2009) or even absent (Meziane et al., 2011; Philpotts, 2009). The marks made by a CAD system can be “binary,” giving the same signal to any location where the signal is above some threshold. Alternatively, a CAD system presents an analog signal that reflects strength of the signal at a location. In the experiments reported, we compare analog and binary CAD presentations using nonexpert observers and artificial stimuli defined by two noisy signals: a visible color signal and an “invisible” signal that informed our simulated CAD system. We found that analog CAD generally yielded better overall performance than binary CAD. The analog benefit is similar at high and low target prevalence. Our data suggest that the form of the CAD signal can directly influence performance. Analog CAD may allow the computer to be more helpful to the searcher.

[1]  R. Passariello,et al.  CAD (computed-aided detection) and CADx (computer aided diagnosis) systems in identifying and characterising lung nodules on chest CT: overview of research, developments and new prospects , 2010, La radiologia medica.

[2]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[3]  David Gur,et al.  Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. , 2003, Radiology.

[4]  Christopher P Benton,et al.  The direction of measured face aftereffects. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[5]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  Maneesha Singh,et al.  Explosives detection systems (EDS) for aviation security , 2003, Signal Process..

[7]  P F Judy,et al.  Influence of CT image size and format on accuracy of lung nodule detection. , 1998, Radiology.

[8]  Michael Swift,et al.  Screening mammography , 1993, The Lancet.

[9]  S. Astley,et al.  Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  H L Kundel,et al.  Mechanism of satisfaction of search: eye position recordings in the reading of chest radiographs. , 1995, Radiology.

[11]  C. Chabris,et al.  Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events , 1999, Perception.

[12]  Andrew T. Smith,et al.  Sensitivity of human visual cortical areas to the stereoscopic depth of a moving stimulus. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[13]  Matthew S Cain,et al.  Anticipatory Anxiety Hinders Detection of a Second Target in Dual-Target Search , 2011, Psychological science.

[14]  R Kikinis,et al.  Spiral CT of the chest: comparison of cine and film-based viewing. , 1995, Radiology.

[15]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: trained observers miss rare targets, too. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[16]  David Gur,et al.  The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: Changing the confidence ratings. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[17]  R. Birdwell The preponderance of evidence supports computer-aided detection for screening mammography. , 2009, Radiology.

[18]  Jonathan H Sunshine,et al.  How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography? , 2010, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[19]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Varying Target Prevalence Reveals Two Dissociable Decision Criteria in Visual Search , 2010, Current Biology.

[20]  Anina N. Rich,et al.  Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[21]  Susan M Astley,et al.  Single reading with computer-aided detection and double reading of screening mammograms in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program. , 2006, Radiology.

[22]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists' error rates in screening for cervical cancer. , 2011, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[23]  Adam T. Biggs,et al.  Improving the Efficacy of Security Screening Tasks: A Review of Visual Search Challenges and Ways to Mitigate Their Adverse Effects , 2015 .

[24]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. , 2006, Radiology.

[25]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Role of faulty visual search in the satisfaction of search effect in chest radiography. , 1998, Academic radiology.

[26]  Hongjing Lu,et al.  A biological motion toolbox for reading, displaying, and manipulating motion capture data in research settings. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[27]  L. Tabár,et al.  Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. , 2000, Radiology.

[28]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Role of faulty decision making in the satisfaction of search effect in chest radiography. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[29]  Trafton Drew,et al.  When and why might a computer-aided detection (CAD) system interfere with visual search? An eye-tracking study. , 2012, Academic radiology.

[30]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Computer-aided detection of masses at mammography: interactive decision support versus prompts. , 2013, Radiology.

[31]  Matthew S Cain,et al.  Self-Induced Attentional Blink , 2013, Psychological science.

[32]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  26.5 brief comms NEW , 2005 .

[33]  I. Rock,et al.  Inattentional blindness: Perception without attention. , 1998 .

[34]  Paul Taylor,et al.  Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. , 2008, European journal of cancer.

[35]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. , 2003, Radiology.

[36]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Generalized "satisfaction of search": adverse influences on dual-target search accuracy. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[37]  P. Ayton,et al.  Use of computer-aided detection (CAD) tools in screening mammography: a multidisciplinary investigation. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[38]  John Papaioannou,et al.  Clinically missed cancer: how effectively can radiologists use computer-aided detection? , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[39]  Karla K. Evans,et al.  If You Don’t Find It Often, You Often Don’t Find It: Why Some Cancers Are Missed in Breast Cancer Screening , 2013, PloS one.

[40]  Rachel F Brem,et al.  Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[41]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[42]  B. Zheng,et al.  Soft-copy mammographic readings with different computer-assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. , 2001, Radiology.

[43]  Harold L. Kundel,et al.  Disease prevalence and the index of detectability: a survey of studies of lung cancer detection by chest radiography , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[44]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The Invisible Gorilla Strikes Again , 2013, Psychological science.

[45]  T. Freer,et al.  Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. , 2001, Radiology.

[46]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Using computer-aided detection in mammography as a decision support , 2010, European Radiology.

[47]  Stephen H Adamo,et al.  Rare, but obviously there: effects of target frequency and salience on visual search accuracy. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[48]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  A comparison of follow-up recommendations by chest radiologists, general radiologists, and pulmonologists using computer-aided detection to assess radiographs for actionable pulmonary nodules. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[49]  L. Philpotts,et al.  Can computer-aided detection be detrimental to mammographic interpretation? , 2009, Radiology.

[50]  Kevin S. Berbaum,et al.  Missed fractures resulting from satisfaction of search effect , 1994, Emergency Radiology.

[51]  C. Lehman,et al.  Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[52]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[53]  R. Brem,et al.  Radiologist detection of microcalcifications with and without computer-aided detection: a comparative study. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[54]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Rare targets are often missed in visual search , 2005 .

[55]  Daniel J Simons,et al.  You do not talk about Fight Club if you do not notice Fight Club: Inattentional blindness for a simulated real-world assault , 2011, i-Perception.

[56]  Cfp,et al.  The Invisible Gorilla in the Room , 2013 .

[57]  Stephen R Mitroff,et al.  Different Predictors of Multiple-Target Search Accuracy between Nonprofessional and Professional Visual Searchers , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.