The problem of image interpretation in mammography: Effects of lesion conspicuity on the visual search strategy of radiologists

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 79, Issue SPEC. ISS. 2, 2006, Pages

  Mello Thoms, Claudia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EYE FIXATION; EYE TRACKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NORMAL HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOLOGIST;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DECISION MAKING; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY;

EID: 33846519908     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/61144371     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Cancer Facts and Figures 2006. American Cancer Society, 2006.
2. Warwick J, Tabar L, Vitak B, Duffy SW. Time-dependent effects on survival in breast carcinoma: results from 20 years of follow-up from the Swedish two-county study. Cancer 2004;100:1331-6.
3. Ganry O, Peng J, Dubreuil A. Influence of abnormal screens on delays and prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma. J Med Screening 2004;11:28-31.
4. Buseman S, Mouchawar J, Calonge N, Byers T. Mammography screening matters for young women with breast carcinoma: evidence of downstaging among 42-49-year-old women with a history of previous mammography screening. Cancer 2003;97:352-8.
5. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Canvey PA, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 2005;234:363-73.
6. Brem RF. The never ending controversies of screening mammography: what is the appropriate callback rate for women undergoing screening mammographic examination? Cancer 2004;100:1549-52.
7. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammogram and clinical breast examinations. New Engl J Med 1998;338:1089-96.
8. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Thickman D, Carmody D, Toto L. Nodule detection with and without a chest image. Investigative Radiol 1985;20:94-9.
9. Burhenne LJW, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000;215:554-62.
10. Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Mello-Thoms C, Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Sullivan DC, et al. How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 1999;6:575-85.
11. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C. The nature of expertise in Radiology. In: Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL, editors. Handbook of medical imaging, volume 1: progress in medical physics and psychophysics. SPIE Press, 2000:859-94.
12. Kundel HL, Nodine CF. A visual concept shapes image perception. Radiology 1983;146:363-8.
13. Kundel HL, Nodine CF. Modeling visual search during mammogram viewing. Proc SPIE Image Perception, Observer Performance and Technology Assessment 2004;5372:110-5.
14. Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Lauver SC, Toto LC. Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses. Acad Radiol 1996;3:1000-6.
15. Mello-Thoms C. How does the perception of a lesion influence visual search strategy in mammogram reading? Acad Radiol 2006;13:275-88.
16. Kundel HL, LaFollette PS. Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images. Radiology 1972;103:523-8.
17. Mackworth NH. Stimulus density limits the useful field of view. In: Monty RA, Senders JW, editors. Eye movements and psychological processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, 1976: 307-21.
18. Henderson JM, Hollingworth A. Eye movements, visual memory, and scene representation. In: Peterson MA, Rhodes G, editors. Perception of faces, objects, and scenes - analytic and holistic processes. Oxford University Press, 2003:356-83.
19. Mallat S. A wavelet tour of signal processing. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1998.
20. Popivanov I, Muller RJ. Similarity search over time-series data using wavelets. Proc. of the 18th International Conference on Data Engineering 2002;1063:6382/02.
21. Manahilov V, Simpson W. Energy model for contrast detection: spatiotemporal characteristics of threshold vision. Biological Cybernetics 1999;81:61-71.
22. Deutsch S, Deutsch A. Understanding the nervous system - an engineering perspective. Wiley-IEEE Press, 1993.
23. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Weinstein SP, Kundel HL, Conant EF, Heller-Savoy RE, et al. Blinded review of retrospectively visible unreported breast cancers: an eye position analysis. Radiology 2001;221:122-9.
24. Mello-Thoms C, Hardesty L, Sumkin J, Ganott M, Hakim C, Britton C, et al. Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading. Acad Radiol 2005;12:830-40.