Inattentional blindness increased with augmented reality surgical navigation

American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 433-437

  Dixon, Benjamin J ^a   Daly, Michael J ^b,c   Chan, Harley H L ^b   Vescan, Allan ^b   Witterick, Ian J ^b   Irish, Jonathan C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; AUGMENTED REALITY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ENDOSCOPE; FOREIGN BODY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; NORMAL HUMAN; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY; PRODUCTIVITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REALITY THERAPY; SURGICAL ERROR; SURGICAL NAVIGATION SYSTEM; TIME; COMPUTER ASSISTED SURGERY; EDUCATION; ENDOSCOPY; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ENDOSCOPY; HUMANS; OTOLARYNGOLOGY; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84907434686     PISSN: 19458924     EISSN: 19458932     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2500/ajra.2014.28.4067     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Azagury DE, Ryou M, Shaikh SN, et al. Real-time computed tomography-based augmented reality for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery navigation. Br J Surg 99:1246-1253, 2012.
2. Volonté F, Pugin F, Bucher P, et al. Augmented reality and image overlay navigation with OsiriX in laparoscopic and robotic surgery: Not only a matter of fashion. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 18:506-509, 2011.
3. Nakamoto M, Ukimura O, Faber K, and Gill IS. Current progress on augmented reality visualization in endoscopic surgery. Curr Opin Urol 22:121-126, 2012.
4. Volonte F, Buchs NC, Pugin F, et al. Augmented reality to the rescue of the minimally invasive surgeon. The usefulness of the interposition of stereoscopic images in the Da Vinci robotic console. Int J Med Robot 9:e34-e38, 2013.
5. Matsuda T. Recent advances in urologic laparoscopic surgeries: Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, robotics and navigation. Asian J Endosc Surg 6:68-77, 2013.
6. Azuma RT. A survey of augmented reality. In Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 4:355-385, 1997.
7. Dixon BJ, Daly MJ, Chan H, et al. Surgeons blinded by enhanced navigation: The effect of augmented reality on attention. Surg Endosc 27:454-461, 2013.
8. Fischer E, Haines RF, and Price TA. Cognitive issues in head-up displays (NASA Technical paper 1711). Moffat Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center, 1980.
9. Wickens CD. Attentional tunneling and task management: Technical Report AHFD-05-23/NASA-05-10. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, 1-10, 2005.
10. Yeh M, Wickens CD, and Seagull FJ. Target cuing in visual search: the effects of conformality and display location on the allocation of visual attention. Hum Factors 41:524-542, 1999.
11. Simons DJ, and Chabris CF. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28:1059-1074, 1999.
12. Jho HD, and Carrau RL. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery: Experience with 50 patients. J Neurosurg 87:44-51, 1997.
13. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 31:1116-1128, 2006.
14. Daly MJ, Chan H, Prisman E, et al. Fusion of intraoperative conebeam CT and endoscopic video for image-guided procedures. Proc SPIE 762:762503, 2010.
15. Yeh M, Merlo JL, Wickens CD, and Brandenburg DL. Head up versus head down: the costs of imprecision, unreliability, and visual clutter on cue effectiveness for display signaling. Hum Factors 45:390-407, 2003.
16. Maltz M, and Shinar D. New alternative methods of analyzing human behavior in cued target acquisition. Hum Factors 45:281-295, 2003.
17. Berbaum KS, Franken EA Jr, Dorfman DD, et al. Cause of satisfaction of search effects in contrast studies of the abdomen. Acad Radiol 3:815-826, 1996.
18. Wickens CD, Alexande, AL, Horrey WJ, et al. Traffic and flight guidance depiction on a synthetic vision system display: The affects of clutter on performance and visual attention allocation. Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, 218-222, 2004.
19. Marescaux J, Rubino F, Arenas M, et al. Augmented-reality-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy. JAMA 292:2214-2215, 2004.
20. Dixon BJ, Daly MJ, Chan H, et al. Augmented image guidance improves skull base navigation and reduces task workload in trainees: A preclinical trial. Laryngoscope 121:2060-2064, 2011.
21. Dixon BJ, Chan H, Daly MJ, et al. The effect of augmented real-time image guidance on task workload during endoscopic sinus surgery. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2:405-410, 2012.
22. Ververs PM, and Wickens CD. Head-up displays: Effects of clutter, display intensity, and display location on pilot performance. Int J Aviat Psychol 8:377-403, 1998.
23. McCann RS, Foyle DC, and Johnston JC. Attentional limitations with head-up displays. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Colombus, OH, 70-75, 1993.