The effect of abnormality-prevalence expectation on expert observer performance and visual search

Radiology

Volumn 258, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 938-943

  Reed, Warren M ^a   Ryan, John T ^a   McEntee, Mark F ^b   Evanoff, Michael G ^c   Brennan, Patrick C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^c American Board of Radiology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EXPECTATION; EYE FIXATION; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUNG LESION; LUNG NODULE; MALE; MEDICAL EXPERT; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG DISEASES; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREVALENCE; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; ROC CURVE; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 79952289230     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101090     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Gibson JJ. A critical review of the concept set in contemporary experimental psychology. Psychol Bull 1941;38(9):781-817.
2. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Kenner NM. Cognitive psychology:rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 2005;435(7041):439-440. (Pubitemid 40740251)
3. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(3):185-190. (Pubitemid 38263177)
4. Reed W, Poulos A, Rickard M, Brennan P. Reader practice in mammography screen reporting in Australia. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2009;53(6):530-537.
5. Krupinski EA. Visual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms. Acad Radiol 1996;3(2):137-144.
6. Reed W. Mammography interpretation: factors influencing the assessment of accuracy and the perception of abnormality. Radiographer 2005;52(2):23-25.
7. Manning DJ, Ethell S, Donovan T, et al. How do radiologists do it? the influence of experience and training on searching for chest nodules. Radiography 2006;12(2):134-142.
8. Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Mello-Thoms C, et al. How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 1999;6(10):575-585. (Pubitemid 32674933)
9. Kundel HL. Disease prevalence and the index of detectability:a survey of studies of lung cancer detection by chest radiography. Proc SPIE 2000;3981:135-144.
10. Swensson RG, Hessel SJ, Herman PG. The value of searching films without specific preconceptions. Invest Radiol 1985;20(1):100-114.
11. Kundel HL. Disease prevalence and radiological decision making. Invest Radiol 1982;17(1):107-109. (Pubitemid 12148689)
12. Ethell SC, Manning D. Effects of prevalence on visual search and decision making in fracture detection. Proc SPIE 2001;4324:249-257. (Pubitemid 32794610)
13. Gur D, Rockette HE, Armfield DR, et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology 2003;228(1):10-14. (Pubitemid 36736062)
14. Gur D, Bandos AI, Fuhrman CR, Klym AH, King JL, Rockette HE. The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment:changing the confidence ratings. Acad Radiol 2007;14(1):49-53. (Pubitemid 44920377)
15. Mello-Thoms CM, Hardesty L, Sumkin J, et al. Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading. Acad Radiol 2005;12(7):830-840. (Pubitemid 41008676)
16. Mello-Thoms CM, Dunn S, Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Weinstein SP. The perception of breast cancer:what differentiates missed from reported cancers in mammography? Acad Radiol 2002;9(9):1004-1012.
17. Mello-Thoms CM. The problem of image interpretation in mammography: effects of lesion conspicuity on the visual search strategy of radiologists. Br J Radiol 2006;79(spec no 2):S111-S116.
18. Donovan T, Manning DJ. The radiology task: Bayesian theory and perception. Br J Radiol 2007;80(954):389-391. (Pubitemid 47322224)
19. Ryan JT, McEntee MF, Manning DJ, Evanoff MG, Brennan PC. A software system for the simulation of chest lesions. Proc SPIE 2007;6515:J1-J8.
20. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992;27(9):723-731.
21. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, et al. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18. http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/OR-03.pdf. Published, April 2005. Accessed February 6, 2010.
22. Egglin TK, Feinstein AR. Context bias: a problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996;276(21):1752-1755. (Pubitemid 26423969)
23. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Kenner N, Hyle M, Vasan N. How fast can you change your mind? the speed of top-down guidance in visual search. Vision Res 2004;44(12):1411-1426. (Pubitemid 38447072)
24. Gur D, Rockette HE, Warfel T, Lacomis JM, Fuhrman CR. From the laboratory to the clinic:the "prevalence effect". Acad Radiol 2003;10(11):1324-1326.