Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

© RSNA, 2014. Purpose: To identify and compare key stages of the visual process in experienced and inexperienced readers and to examine how these processes are used to search a moving threedimensional (3D) image and their relationship to falsenegative errors. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board research ethics approval was granted to use anonymized computed tomographic (CT) colonographic data from previous studies and to obtain eyetracking data from volunteers. Sixty-five radiologists (27 experienced, 38 inexperienced) interpreted 23 endoluminal 3D CT colonographic videos. Eye movements were recorded by using eye tracking with a desk-mounted tracker. Readers indicated when they saw a polyp by clicking a computer mouse. Polyp location and boundary on each video frame were quantified and gaze data were related to the polyp boundary for each individual reader and case. Predefined metrics were quantified and used to describe and compare visual search patterns between experienced and inexperienced readers by using multilevel modeling. Results: Time to first pursuit was significantly shorter in experienced readers (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% confidence interval: 1.04, 1.44]; P = .017) but other metrics were not significantly different. Regardless of expertise, metrics such as assessment, identification period, and pursuit times were extended in videos where polyps were visible on screen for longer periods of time. In 97% (760 of 787) of observations, readers correctly pursued polyps. Conclusion: Experienced readers had shorter time to first eye pursuit, but many other characteristics of eye tracking were similar between experienced and inexperienced readers. Readers pursued polyps in 97% of observations, which indicated that errors during interpretation of 3D CT colonography in this study occurred in either the discovery or the recognition phase, but rarely in the scanning phase of radiologic image inspection.

Original publication

DOI

10.1148/radiol.14132896

Type

Journal article

Journal

Radiology

Publication Date

01/01/2014

Volume

273

Pages

783 - 792