Retrospective Review of the Drop in Observer Detection Performance Over Time in Lesion-enriched Experimental Studies

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 32-40

  Taylor Phillips, Sian ^a   Elze, Markus C ^b   Krupinski, Elizabeth A ^c   Dennick, Kathryn ^d   Gale, Alastair G ^e   Clarke, Aileen ^a   Mello Thoms, Claudia ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^d KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^e LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Fatigue; Observer performance evaluation; Prevalence; Radiologist; Vigilance

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; FATIGUE OF MATERIALS; RADIOLOGY; VISION;

DETECTION PERFORMANCE; MIXED EFFECTS MODELS; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE; PREVALENCE; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY DECREASE; SYSTEMATIC VARIATION; VIGILANCE;

X RAYS;

AROUSAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; FATIGUE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARDS; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

AROUSAL; FATIGUE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84922000398     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-014-9717-9     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Krupinski EA: Reader fatigue interpreting mammograms. Lect Notes Comput Sci 6136:312–318, 2010
2. Gale AG, Murray D, Millar K, Worthington BS: Circadian Variation in Radiology: North-Holland, 1984
3. Mackworth NH: The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Q J Exp Psychol 1:6–21, 1948
4. See JE, Howe SR, Warm JS, Dember WN: Metaanalysis of the sensitivity decrement in vigilance. Psychol Bull 117:230–249, 1995
5. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Kenner NM: Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 435:439–440, 2005
6. Wolfe JM, Van Wert MJ: Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Curr Biol 20:121–124, 2010
7. Wolfe JM, Horowitz TS, Van Wert MJ, Kenner NM, Place SS, Kibbi N: Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen 136:623–638, 2007
8. Kundel HL: Disease prevalence and the index of detectability: a survey of studies of lung cancer detection by chest radiography: SPIE, 2000
9. Egglin TK, Feinstein AR: Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 276:1752–1755, 1996
10. Gur D, et al: Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology 228:10–14, 2003
11. Cowley HC: GAG: Time of Day Effects on Mammographic Film Reading Performance. SPIE, Newport Beach, 1997
12. Gale AG, De Silva ES, Walker GE, Roebuck EJ, Worthington BS: Vigilance Decrement and Radiological Reporting. Taylor & Francis, Reading, 1989
13. Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Kim J: Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol JACR 7:698–704, 2010
14. Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Madsen MT, Kramer DJ: Do long radiology workdays affect nodule detection in dynamic CT interpretation? J Am Coll Radiol 9:191–198, 2012
15. Krupinski EA, et al: Influence of 8-bit vs. 11-bit digital displays on observer performance and visual search: a multi-center evaluation. J Soc Inf Disp 15:385–390, 2007
16. Mello-Thoms C: The Holistic Grail: Possible Implications of an Initial Mistake in the Reading of Digital Mammograms. SPIE, Florida, 2009
17. Mello-Thoms C: How Much Agreement is There in the Visual Search Strategy of Experts Reading Mammograms? SPIE, San Diego, 2008
18. Taylor-Phillips S, Wallis MG, Duncan A, Gale AG: Use of prior mammograms in the transition to digital mammography: a performance and cost analysis. Eur J Radiol 81:60–65, 2012
19. Elze MC, Taylor-Phillips S, Mello-Thoms C, Krupinski EA, Gale AG, Clarke A: The Variation of Radiologists’ Performance Over the Course of a Reading Session. SPIE, Florida, 2013
20. R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2012
21. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B: lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 in R package version 0.999902344-0, 2012
22. Tulving E, Schacter DL: Priming and human memory systems. Science 247:301–306, 1990