The future of image perception in radiology: Synergy between humans and computers

Academic Radiology

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-3

  Krupinski, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EDITORIAL; FUTUROLOGY; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS;

EID: 0037214136     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(03)80781-x     Document Type: Editorial

References (8)

1. Neisser U. Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology. San Francisco, Calif; W. H. Freeman, 1976; 20.
2. Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Mello-Thoms C, et al. How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 1999; 6:575-585.
3. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: Volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94:369-375.
4. Birkelo CC, Chamberlain WE, Phelps PS, Schools PE, Zachs D, Yerushalmy J. Tuberculosis case finding: Comparison of effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods. JAMA 1947; 133:359-366.
5. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Carmody DP. Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary tumor detection. Invest Radiol 1978; 13:175-181.
6. Berbaum KS, Franken EA, Dorfman DD, et al. Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. Invest Radiol 1990; 25:133-140.
7. Krupinski EA, Nishikawa RM. Comparison of eye position versus computer identified microcalcification clusters on mammograms. Med Phys 1997; 24:17-23.
8. Mello-Thoms C. Perception of breast cancer: Eye-position analysis of mammogram interpretation. Acad Radiol 2003; 10:4-12.