The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Holistic Component of Image Perception in Mammogram Interpretation: Gaze-tracking Study
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that rapid and accurate performance of the proficient observer in mammogram interpretation involves a shift in the mechanism of image perception from a relatively slow search-to-find mode to a relatively fast holistic mode. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval, and participant informed consent was obtained; patient informed consent was not required. The eye positions of three full-time mammographers, one attending radiologist, two mammography fellows, and three radiology residents were recorded during the interpretation of 20 normal and 20 subtly abnormal mammograms. The search time required to first locate a cancer, as well as the initial eye scan path, was determined and compared with diagnostic performance as measured with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The median time for all observers to fixate a cancer, regardless of the decision outcome, was 1.13 seconds, with a range of 0.68 second to 3.06 seconds. Even though most of the lesions were fixated, recognition of them as cancerous ranged from 85% (17 of 20) to 10% (two of 20), with corresponding areas under the ROC curve of 0.87-0.40. The ROC index of detectability, d(a), was linearly related to the time to first fixate a cancer with a correlation (r(2)) of 0.81. CONCLUSION: The rapid initial fixation of a true abnormality is evidence for a global perceptual process capable of analyzing the visual input of the entire retinal image and pinpointing the spatial location of an abnormality. It appears to be more highly developed in the most proficient observers, replacing the less efficient initial search-to-find strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E., & Säljö, R. (2011) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9174-7 · Cited by 715
Best practices in modified barium swallow studies
Martin-Harris, B., Canon, C. L., Bonilha, H. S., Murray, J., Davidson, K., & Lefton-Greif, M. A. (2020) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2020_ajslp-19-00189 · Cited by 129
Perceptual expertise in forensic facial image comparison
White, D., Phillips, P. J., Hahn, C. A., Hill, M., & O'Toole, A. J. (2015) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.1292 · Cited by 121
Williams, L. H., & Drew, T. (2019) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-019-0171-6 · Cited by 48
Are forensic scientists experts?
Towler, A., White, D., Ballantyne, K., Searston, R. A., Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2018) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.03.010 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Kundel, H. L., Nodine, C. F., Conant, E. F., & Weinstein, S. P.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2007-02
- Volume
- 242
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 396-402
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2136024742
- Cited by
- 383
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.