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

Radiography

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 196-199

  Nocum, Don J ^a   Brennan, Patrick C ^a   Huang, Richard T ^a   Reed, Warren M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Eye tracking; Observer performance; Radiography students; Receiver operating characteristic (ROC); Visual search

Indexed keywords

ABNORMALITY PREVALENCE EXPECTATION; ARTICLE; EYE POSITION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LUNG LESION; MEDICAL STUDENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 84880619356     PISSN: 10788174     EISSN: 15322831     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2013.04.004     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ethell S.C., Manning D. Effects of prevalence on visual search and decision making in fracture detection. SPIE Proceedings Series 2001, 4324:249-257.
2. Rich A.N., Kunar M.A., Van Wert M.J., Hidalgo-Sotelo B., Horowitz T.S., Wolfe J.M. Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision 2008, 8(15):1-17.
3. Van Wert M.J., Horowitz T.S., Wolfe J. Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 2009, 71(3):541-553.
4. Wolfe J.M., Horowitz T.S., Van Wert M.J., Kenner N.M., Place S.S., Kibbi N. Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 136(4):623-638.
5. Gur D., Bandos A.I., Fuhrman C.R., Klym A.H., King J.L., Rockette H.E. The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: changing the confidence ratings. Academic Radiology 2007, 14(1):49-53.
6. Manning D.J., Ethell S.C., Crawford T., Donovan T. How do radiologists do it? The influence of experience and training on searching for chest nodules. Radiography 2005, 12(2):134-142.
7. Potchen E.J., Copper T.G., Sierra A.E., Aben G.R., Potchen M.J., Potter M.G., et al. Measuring performance in chest radiography. Radiology 2000, 217(2):456-459.
8. Gur D., Rockette H.E., Warfel T., Lacomis J.M., Fuhrman C.R. From the laboratory to the clinic: the "prevalence effect". Academic Radiology 2003, 10(11):1324-1326.
9. Reed W.M., Ryan J.T., McEntee M.F., Evanoff M.G., Brennan P.C. The effect of abnormality-prevalence expectation on expert observer performance and visual search. Radiology 2011, 258(3):938-943.
10. Gibson J.J. Acritical review of the concept set in contemporary experimental psychology. Psychological Bulletin 1941, 38(9):781-817.
11. Gur D., Rockette H.E., Armfield D.R., Blachar A., Bogan J.K., Brancatelli G., et al. Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology 2003, 228(1):10-14.
12. Swensson R.G., King J.L., Good W.F., Gur D. Observer variation and the performance accuracy gained by averaging ratings of abnormality. Medical Physics 2000, 27(8):1920-1933.
13. Donnovan T., Manning D.J. The radiology task: Bayesian theory and perception. British Journal of Radiology 2007, 80(954):389-391.
14. Ryan J.T., McEntree M.F., Manning D.J., Evanoff M.G., Brennan P.C. Asoftware system for the simulation of chest lesions. Proceedings of the SPIE 2007, 6515:J1-J8.
15. Dorfman D.D., Berbaum K.S., Metz C.E. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investigative Radiology 1992, 27:723-731.
16. Egglin T.K., Feinstein A.R. Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996, 276(21):1752-1755.
17. Handbook of Medical imaging. Physics and psychophysics 2000, vol. 1:757-758. SPIE Press, Bellingham, WA.
18. Manning D., Barker-Mill S.C., Donovan T., Crawford T. Time-dependent observer errors in pulmonary nodule detection. British Journal of Radiology 2006, 79(940):342-346.
19. Wolfe J.M., Horowitz T.S., Kenner N.M. Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 2005, 435(7041):439-440.
20. Gur D., Sumkin J.H., Rockette H.E., Ganott M., Hakim C., Hardesty L., et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004, 96(3):185-190.
21. Ng E.H., Ng F.C., Tan P.H., Low S.C., Chiang G., Tan K.P., et al. Results of intermediate measures from a population-based, randomized trial of mammographic screening prevalence and detection of breast carcinoma among Asian women. Cancer 1998, 82(8):1521-1528.
22. Dougherty G., Newman D. The effect of anticipation in the scoring of mammographic accreditation phantom images. Radiography 1996, 3(4):279-286.
23. Kundel H.L. Disease prevalence and the index of detectability: a survey of studies of lung cancer detection by chest radiography. Proceedings of the SPIE 2000, 3981:135-144.
24. Kundel H.L. Disease prevalence and radiological decision-making. Investigative Radiology 1982, 17(1):107-109.
25. Maddox W.T. Toward a unified theory of decision criterion learning in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2002, 78(3):567-595.