Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 11/2015

01-11-2015

Inattention blindness in surgery

Authors: Archie Hughes-Hallett, Erik K. Mayer, Hani J. Marcus, Philip Pratt, Sam Mason, Ara W. Darzi, Justin A. Vale

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 11/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Inattention blindness (IB) can be defined as the failure to perceive an unexpected object when attention is focussed on another object or task. The principal aim of this study was to determine the effect of cognitive load and surgical image guidance on operative IB.

Methods

Using a randomised control study design, participants were allocated to a high or low cognitive load group and subsequently to one of three augmented reality (AR) image guidance groups (no guidance, wireframe overlay and solid overlay). Randomised participants watched a segment of video from a robotic partial nephrectomy. Those in the high cognitive load groups were asked to keep a count of instrument movements, while those in the low cognitive load groups were only asked to watch the video. Two foreign bodies were visible within the operative scene: a swab, within the periphery of vision; and a suture, in the centre of the operative scene. Once the participants had finished watching the video, they were asked to report whether they had observed a swab or suture.

Results

The overall level of prompted inattention blindness was 74 and 10 % for the swab and suture, respectively. Significantly higher levels of IB for the swab were seen in the high versus the low cognitive load groups, but not for the suture (8 vs. 47 %, p < 0.001 and 90 vs. 91 %, p = 1.000, for swab and suture, respectively). No significant difference was seen between image guidance groups for attention of the swab or suture (29 vs. 20 %, p = 0.520 and 22 vs. 22 %, p = 1.000, respectively).

Conclusions

The overall effect of IB on operative practice appeared to be significant, within the context of this study. When examining for the effects of AR image guidance and cognitive load on IB, only the latter was found to have significance.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mack A, Rock I (1998) Inattentional blindness, 1st edn. MIT Press, Cambridge Mack A, Rock I (1998) Inattentional blindness, 1st edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
2.
go back to reference Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28:1059–1074CrossRefPubMed Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28:1059–1074CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Dixon BJ, Daly MJ, Chan H, Vescan AD, Witterick IJ, Irish JC (2013) Surgeons blinded by enhanced navigation: the effect of augmented reality on attention. Surg Endosc 27:454–461CrossRefPubMed Dixon BJ, Daly MJ, Chan H, Vescan AD, Witterick IJ, Irish JC (2013) Surgeons blinded by enhanced navigation: the effect of augmented reality on attention. Surg Endosc 27:454–461CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Williams LJ (1982) Cognitive load and the functional field of view. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 24:683–692 Williams LJ (1982) Cognitive load and the functional field of view. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 24:683–692
5.
go back to reference Fadden S, Wickens CD, Vevers P (2000) Costs and benefits of head up displays: an attention perspective and a meta analysis. World Aviat Congr Fadden S, Wickens CD, Vevers P (2000) Costs and benefits of head up displays: an attention perspective and a meta analysis. World Aviat Congr
6.
go back to reference Fischer E, Haines R (1980) Cognitive issues in head-up displays. NASA Tech Pap 1711 Fischer E, Haines R (1980) Cognitive issues in head-up displays. NASA Tech Pap 1711
7.
go back to reference Mccann RS, Foyle DC (1993) Attentional limitations with heads up displays. In: Jensen R (ed) Proceedings of Seventh International Symposium. Aviat Psychol. pp 70–75 Mccann RS, Foyle DC (1993) Attentional limitations with heads up displays. In: Jensen R (ed) Proceedings of Seventh International Symposium. Aviat Psychol. pp 70–75
9.
go back to reference Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ, Cundy TP, Pratt PJ, Parston G, Vale J, Darzi AW (2014) Quantifying innovation in surgery. Ann Surg 260:205–211CrossRefPubMed Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ, Cundy TP, Pratt PJ, Parston G, Vale J, Darzi AW (2014) Quantifying innovation in surgery. Ann Surg 260:205–211CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Pratt P, Mayer E, Vale J, Cohen D, Edwards E, Darzi A, Yang G-Z (2012) An effective visualisation and registration system for image-guided robotic partial nephrectomy. J Robot Surg 6:23–31CrossRef Pratt P, Mayer E, Vale J, Cohen D, Edwards E, Darzi A, Yang G-Z (2012) An effective visualisation and registration system for image-guided robotic partial nephrectomy. J Robot Surg 6:23–31CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hart S, Staveland L (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock A, Meshkati N (eds) Human Mental Workload. North Holland Press, Amsterdam, pp 139–183CrossRef Hart S, Staveland L (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock A, Meshkati N (eds) Human Mental Workload. North Holland Press, Amsterdam, pp 139–183CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Healey AN, Sevdalis N, Vincent CA (2006) Measuring intra-operative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics 49:589–604CrossRefPubMed Healey AN, Sevdalis N, Vincent CA (2006) Measuring intra-operative interference from distraction and interruption observed in the operating theatre. Ergonomics 49:589–604CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Guru KA, Esfahani ET, Raza SJ, Bhat R, Wang K, Hammond Y, Wilding G, Peabody JO, Chowriappa AJ (2014) Cognitive skills assessment during robot-assisted surgery: separating wheat from chaff. BJU Int 115:166–174 Guru KA, Esfahani ET, Raza SJ, Bhat R, Wang K, Hammond Y, Wilding G, Peabody JO, Chowriappa AJ (2014) Cognitive skills assessment during robot-assisted surgery: separating wheat from chaff. BJU Int 115:166–174
14.
go back to reference Wickens CD, Alexander AL (2009) Attentional tunneling and task management in synthetic vision displays. Int J Aviat Psychol 19:182–199CrossRef Wickens CD, Alexander AL (2009) Attentional tunneling and task management in synthetic vision displays. Int J Aviat Psychol 19:182–199CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Liu D, Jenkins SA, Sanderson PM, Watson MO, Leane T, Kruys A, Russell WJ (2009) Monitoring with head-mounted displays: performance and safety in a full-scale simulator and part-task trainer. Anesth Analg 109:1135–1146CrossRefPubMed Liu D, Jenkins SA, Sanderson PM, Watson MO, Leane T, Kruys A, Russell WJ (2009) Monitoring with head-mounted displays: performance and safety in a full-scale simulator and part-task trainer. Anesth Analg 109:1135–1146CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Bressan P, Pizzighello S (2008) The attentional cost of inattentional blindness. Cognition 106:370–383CrossRefPubMed Bressan P, Pizzighello S (2008) The attentional cost of inattentional blindness. Cognition 106:370–383CrossRefPubMed
17.
Metadata
Title
Inattention blindness in surgery
Authors
Archie Hughes-Hallett
Erik K. Mayer
Hani J. Marcus
Philip Pratt
Sam Mason
Ara W. Darzi
Justin A. Vale
Publication date
01-11-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 11/2015
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-4051-3

Other articles of this Issue 11/2015

Surgical Endoscopy 11/2015 Go to the issue