Clinical Radiology
Volume 62, Issue 11 , Pages 1069-1077 , November 2007

Visual search behaviour in skeletal radiographs: a cross-speciality study

  • J.J.H. Leong

      Affiliations

    • The Royal Society/Wolfson Foundation Medical Image Computing Laboratory, Imperial College London, London, UK
    • Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
    • ,
  • M. Nicolaou

      Affiliations

    • The Royal Society/Wolfson Foundation Medical Image Computing Laboratory, Imperial College London, London, UK
    • Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
    • ,
  • R.J. Emery

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
    • ,
  • A.W. Darzi

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
    • ,
  • G.-Z. Yang

      Affiliations

    • The Royal Society/Wolfson Foundation Medical Image Computing Laboratory, Imperial College London, London, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: G.Z. Yang, Royal Society/Wolfson MIC Laboratory, Department of Computing, Imperial College London, 180 Queens Gate, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 207 5948441; fax: +44 207 5818024.

Received 4 January 2007 ,Revised 1 May 2007 ,Accepted 24 May 2007.

References 

  1. Benger JR, Lyburn ID. What is the effect of reporting all emergency department radiographs?. Emerg Med J. 2003;20:40–43
  2. Williams SM, Connelly DJ, Wadsworth S, et al. Radiological review of accident and emergency radiographs: a 1-year audit. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:861–865
  3. Tachakra S. Level of diagnostic confidence, accuracy, and reasons for mistakes in teleradiology for minor injuries. Telemed J E Health. 2002;8:111–121
  4. Rhea JT, Potsaid MS, DeLuca SA. Errors of interpretation as elicited by a quality audit of an emergency radiology facility. Radiology. 1979;132:277–280
  5. Eng J, Mysko WK, Weller GE, et al. Interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:1233–1238
  6. Cimmino CV. The radiologist and the orthopedist. Radiology. 1970;97:690–691
  7. Anglen J, Marberry K, Gehrke J. The clinical utility of duplicate readings for musculoskeletal radiographs. Orthopedics. 1997;20:1015–1019
  8. Dodge R, Cline TS. The angle velocity of eye-movements. Psychol Rev. 1901;8:145–157
  9. Yang GZ, Dempere-Marco L, Hu XP, et al. Visual search: psychophysical models and practical applications. Image Vis Comput. 2002;20:291–305
  10. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Weinstein SP, et al. Blinded review of retrospectively visible unreported breast cancers: an eye-position analysis. Radiology. 2001;221:122–129
  11. Krupinski EA, Berger WG, Dallas WJ, et al. Searching for nodules: what features attract attention and influence detection?. Acad Radiol. 2003;10:861–868
  12. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Carmody D. Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. Invest Radiol. 1978;13:175–181
  13. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Krupinski EA. Searching for lung nodules. Visual dwell indicates locations of false-positive and false-negative decisions. Invest Radiol. 1989;24:472–478
  14. Krupinski EA. Visual search of mammographic images: influence of lesion subtlety. Acad Radiol. 2005;12:965–969
  15. Kundel HL, Nodine CF. The cognitive side of visual search. In:  O'Regan JK,  Levy-Schoen A editor. Eye movements: from physiology to cognition. New York: Elsevier; 1987;p. 573–582
  16. Kullback S, Leibler RA. On information and sufficiency. Ann Math Stat. 1951;1:79–86
  17. Dempster A, Laird N, Rubin DB. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J Roy Stat Soc B. 1977;39:1–38
  18. Akaho S. The EM algorithm for multiple object recognition. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN'95), Perth, Western Australia 1995; 5:2426–2431.
  19. van Onselen EB, Karim RB, Hage JJ, et al. Prevalence and distribution of hand fractures. J Hand Surg [Br]. 2003;28:491–495
  20. Hu XP, Dempere-Marco L, Yang GZ. Hot spot detection based on feature space representation of visual search. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003;22:1152–1162
  21. Dempere-Marco L, Hu XP, MacDonald SL, et al. The use of visual search for knowledge gathering in image decision support. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2002;21:741–754
  22. Hu CH, Kundel HL, Nodine CF, et al. Searching for bone fractures: a comparison with pulmonary nodule search. Acad Radiol. 1994;1:25–32
  23. Berbaum KS, Brandser EA, Franken EA, et al. Gaze dwell times on acute trauma injuries missed because of satisfaction of search. Acad Radiol. 2001;8:304–314
  24. Lund PJ, Krupinski EA, Pereles S, et al. Comparison of conventional and computed radiography: assessment of image quality and reader performance in skeletal extremity trauma. Acad Radiol. 1997;4:570–576
  25. Krupinski EA, Lund PJ. Differences in time to interpretation for evaluation of bone radiographs with monitor and film viewing. Acad Radiol. 1997;4:177–182
  26. van Zoest W, Donk M. Bottom-up and top-down control in visual search. Perception. 2004;33:927–937

PII: S0009-9260(07)00233-4

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.008

Clinical Radiology
Volume 62, Issue 11 , Pages 1069-1077 , November 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution