Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 2/2017

01-04-2017

Diagnostic Accuracy and Visual Search Efficiency: Single 8 MP vs. Dual 5 MP Displays

Author: Elizabeth A. Krupinski

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

This study compared a single 8 MP vs. dual 5 MP displays for diagnostic accuracy, reading time, number of times the readers zoomed/panned images, and visual search. Six radiologists viewed 60 mammographic cases, once on each display. A sub-set of 15 cases was viewed in a secondary study using eye-tracking. For viewing time, there was significant difference (F = 13.901, p = 0.0002), with 8 MP taking less time (62.04 vs. 68.99 s). There was no significant difference (F = 0.254, p = 0.6145) in zoom/pan use (1.94 vs. 1.89). Total number of fixations was significantly (F = 4.073, p = 0.0466) lower with 8 MP (134.47 vs. 154.29). Number of times readers scanned between images was significantly fewer (F = 10.305, p = 0.0018) with 8 MP (6.83 vs. 8.22). Time to first fixate lesion did not differ (F = 0.126, p = 0.7240). It did not take any longer to detect the lesion as a function of the display configuration. Total time spent on lesion did not differ (F = 0.097, p = 0.7567) (8.59 vs. 8.39). Overall, the single 8 MP display yielded the same diagnostic accuracy as the dual 5 MP displays. The lower resolution did not appear to influence the readers’ ability to detect and view the lesion details, as the eye-position study showed no differences in time to first fixate or total time on the lesions. Nor did the lower resolution result in significant differences in the amount of zooming and panning that the readers did while viewing the cases.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Thompson DP, Koller CJ, Eatough JP: Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations. Br J Radiol 80:256–260, 2007CrossRefPubMed Thompson DP, Koller CJ, Eatough JP: Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations. Br J Radiol 80:256–260, 2007CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of the AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225, 2005 Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of the AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225, 2005
3.
go back to reference Wade C, Brennan PC: Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting. Br J Radiol 77:465–471, 2004CrossRefPubMed Wade C, Brennan PC: Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting. Br J Radiol 77:465–471, 2004CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Butt A, Mahoney M, Savage NW: The impact of computer display performance on the quality of digital radiographs: a review. Aust Dent J 57:16–23, 2012CrossRefPubMed Butt A, Mahoney M, Savage NW: The impact of computer display performance on the quality of digital radiographs: a review. Aust Dent J 57:16–23, 2012CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
go back to reference Krupinski EA, Kallergi M: Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. Radiology 242:671–682, 2007CrossRefPubMed Krupinski EA, Kallergi M: Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. Radiology 242:671–682, 2007CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Hirschorn DS, Krupinski EA, Flynn MJ: PACS displays: how to select the right display technology. J Am Coll Radiol 11:1270–1276, 2014CrossRefPubMed Hirschorn DS, Krupinski EA, Flynn MJ: PACS displays: how to select the right display technology. J Am Coll Radiol 11:1270–1276, 2014CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kagadis GC, Walz-Flannigan A, Krupinski EA, Nagy PG, Katsanos K, Diamantopoulos A, Langer SG: Medical imaging displays and their use in image interpretation. RadioGraphics 33:275–290, 2013CrossRefPubMed Kagadis GC, Walz-Flannigan A, Krupinski EA, Nagy PG, Katsanos K, Diamantopoulos A, Langer SG: Medical imaging displays and their use in image interpretation. RadioGraphics 33:275–290, 2013CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Thompson AC, Kremer MJ, Biswal S, Rebner M, Rebner RE, Thomas WR, Edwards SD, Thompson MO, Ikeda DM: Factors associated with repetitive strain, and strategies to reduce injury among breast-imaging radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 11:1074–1079, 2014CrossRefPubMed Thompson AC, Kremer MJ, Biswal S, Rebner M, Rebner RE, Thomas WR, Edwards SD, Thompson MO, Ikeda DM: Factors associated with repetitive strain, and strategies to reduce injury among breast-imaging radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 11:1074–1079, 2014CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Boiselle PM, Levine D, Horwich PJ, Barbaras L, Siegal D, Shillue K, Affeln D: Repettive stress symptoms in radiology: prevalence and response to ergonomic interventions. J Am Coll Radiol 5:919–923, 2008CrossRefPubMed Boiselle PM, Levine D, Horwich PJ, Barbaras L, Siegal D, Shillue K, Affeln D: Repettive stress symptoms in radiology: prevalence and response to ergonomic interventions. J Am Coll Radiol 5:919–923, 2008CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Krupinski E, Reiner BI: Real-time occupational stress and fatigue measurement in medical imaging practice. J Digit Imaging 25:319–324, 2012CrossRefPubMed Krupinski E, Reiner BI: Real-time occupational stress and fatigue measurement in medical imaging practice. J Digit Imaging 25:319–324, 2012CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Reiner BI, Krupinski E: The insidious problem of fatigue in medical imaging practice. J Digit Imaging 25:3–6, 2012CrossRefPubMed Reiner BI, Krupinski E: The insidious problem of fatigue in medical imaging practice. J Digit Imaging 25:3–6, 2012CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Reiner BI, Krupinski E: Demystifying occupational stress and fatigue through the creation of an adaptive end-user profiling system. J Digit Imaging 25:201–205, 2012CrossRefPubMed Reiner BI, Krupinski E: Demystifying occupational stress and fatigue through the creation of an adaptive end-user profiling system. J Digit Imaging 25:201–205, 2012CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Kim J: Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 7:698–704, 2010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Kim J: Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 7:698–704, 2010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference 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, 2012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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, 2012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Taylor-Phillips S, Elze MC, Krupinski EA, Dennick K, Gale AG, Clarke A, Mello-Thoms C: Retrospective review of the drop in observer detection performance over time in lesion-enriched experimental studies. J Digit Imaging 28:32–40, 2015CrossRefPubMed Taylor-Phillips S, Elze MC, Krupinski EA, Dennick K, Gale AG, Clarke A, Mello-Thoms C: Retrospective review of the drop in observer detection performance over time in lesion-enriched experimental studies. J Digit Imaging 28:32–40, 2015CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investig Radiol 27:723–731, 1992CrossRef Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investig Radiol 27:723–731, 1992CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic Accuracy and Visual Search Efficiency: Single 8 MP vs. Dual 5 MP Displays
Author
Elizabeth A. Krupinski
Publication date
01-04-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-016-9917-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Journal of Digital Imaging 2/2017 Go to the issue