Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 4/2018

Open Access 01-08-2018 | Review

A review of existing and potential computer user interfaces for modern radiology

Authors: Antoine Iannessi, Pierre-Yves Marcy, Olivier Clatz, Anne-Sophie Bertrand, Maki Sugimoto

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 4/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

The digitalization of modern imaging has led radiologists to become very familiar with computers and their user interfaces (UI). New options for display and command offer expanded possibilities, but the mouse and keyboard remain the most commonly utilized, for usability reasons. In this work, we review and discuss different UI and their possible application in radiology. We consider two-dimensional and three-dimensional imaging displays in the context of interventional radiology, and discuss interest in touchscreens, kinetic sensors, eye detection, and augmented or virtual reality. We show that UI design specifically for radiologists is key for future use and adoption of such new interfaces. Next-generation UI must fulfil professional needs, while considering contextual constraints.

Teaching Points

• The mouse and keyboard remain the most utilized user interfaces for radiologists.
• Touchscreen, holographic, kinetic sensors and eye tracking offer new possibilities for interaction.
• 3D and 2D imaging require specific user interfaces.
• Holographic display and augmented reality provide a third dimension to volume imaging.
• Good usability is essential for adoption of new user interfaces by radiologists.
Literature
1.
Berman S, Stern H (2012) Sensors for gesture recognition systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C Appl Rev 42(3):277–290CrossRef
2.
Iso (1998) {ISO 9241–11:1998 ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) -- part 11: guidance on usability}. citeulike-article-id:3290754
3.
Krupinski EA (2014) Human factors and human-computer considerations in Teleradiology and Telepathology. Healthcare (Basel) 2(1):94–114CrossRef
4.
Norweck JT, Seibert JA, Andriole KP et al (2013) ACR-AAPM-SIIM technical standard for electronic practice of medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 26(1):38–52CrossRefPubMed
5.
Engelbart DC, English WK (1968) A research center for augmenting human intellect. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the December 9–11, 1968, fall joint computer conference, part I, San FranciscoCrossRef
6.
7.
Kenn H, Bürgy C (2014) “Are we crossing the chasm in wearable AR?”: 3rd workshop on wearable Systems for Industrial Augmented Reality Applications. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers: Adjunct Program, Seattle
8.
Weiss DL, Siddiqui KM, Scopelliti J (2006) Radiologist assessment of PACS user interface devices. J Am Coll Radiol 3(4):265–273CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zhai S, Morimoto C, Ihde S (1999) Manual and gaze input cascaded (MAGIC) pointing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, PittsburghCrossRef
10.
Fares R, Fang S, Komogortsev O (2013) Can we beat the mouse with MAGIC? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ParisCrossRef
11.
John S, Poh AC, Lim TC, Chan EH, Chong le R (2012) The iPad tablet computer for mobile on-call radiology diagnosis? Auditing discrepancy in CT and MRI reporting. J Digit Imaging 25(5):628–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Tewes S, Rodt T, Marquardt S, Evangelidou E, Wacker FK, von Falck C (2013) Evaluation of the use of a tablet computer with a high-resolution display for interpreting emergency CT scans. Rofo 185(11):1063–1069CrossRefPubMed
13.
Jo J, L'Yi S, Lee B, Seo J (2017) TouchPivot: blending WIMP & post-WIMP interfaces for data exploration on tablet devices. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, DenverCrossRef
14.
Reinschluessel AV, Teuber J, Herrlich M et al (2017) Virtual reality for user-centered design and evaluation of touch-free interaction techniques for navigating medical images in the operating room. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, DenverCrossRef
15.
Iannessi A, Marcy PY, Clatz O, Fillard P, Ayache N (2014) Touchless intra-operative display for interventional radiologist. Diagn Interv Imaging 95(3):333–337CrossRefPubMed
16.
Mewes A, Hensen B, Wacker F, Hansen C (2017) Touchless interaction with software in interventional radiology and surgery: a systematic literature review. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 12(2):291–305CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Bucking TM, Hill ER, Robertson JL, Maneas E, Plumb AA, Nikitichev DI (2017) From medical imaging data to 3D printed anatomical models. PLoS One 12(5):e0178540CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Kim GB, Lee S, Kim H et al (2016) Three-dimensional printing: basic principles and applications in medicine and radiology. Korean J Radiol 17(2):182–197CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
21.
Rowe SP, Fritz J, Fishman EK (2018) CT evaluation of musculoskeletal trauma: initial experience with cinematic rendering. Emerg Radiol 25(1):93–101CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Drijkoningen T, Knoter R, Coerkamp EG, Koning AH, Rhemrev SJ, Beeres FJ (2016) Inter-observer agreement between 2-dimensional CT versus 3-dimensional I-space model in the diagnosis of occult scaphoid fractures. Arch Bone Joint Surg 4(4):343–347PubMed
24.
Schnetzke M, Fuchs J, Vetter SY et al (2016) Intraoperative 3D imaging in the treatment of elbow fractures--a retrospective analysis of indications, intraoperative revision rates, and implications in 36 cases. BMC Med Imaging 16:24CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Stengel D, Wich M, Ekkernkamp A, Spranger N (2016) Intraoperative 3D imaging : diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic benefits. Unfallchirurg 119(10):835–842CrossRefPubMed
26.
Nicolau S, Soler L, Mutter D, Marescaux J (2011) Augmented reality in laparoscopic surgical oncology. Surg Oncol 20(3):189–201CrossRefPubMed
27.
Simpfendorfer T, Li Z, Gasch C et al (2017) Three-dimensional reconstruction of preoperative imaging improves surgical success in laparoscopy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27(2):181–185CrossRefPubMed
28.
Dappa E, Higashigaito K, Fornaro J, Leschka S, Wildermuth S, Alkadhi H (2016) Cinematic rendering - an alternative to volume rendering for 3D computed tomography imaging. Insights Imaging 7(6):849–856CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
Sundaramoorthy G, Higgins WE, Hoford J, Hoffman EA (1992) Graphical user interface system for automatic 3-D medical image analysis. Paper presented at the [1992] Proceedings Fifth Annual IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems
31.
Venson JE, Albiero Berni JC, Edmilson da Silva Maia C, Marques da Silva AM, Cordeiro d'Ornellas M, Maciel A (2017) A case-based study with radiologists performing diagnosis tasks in virtual reality. Stud Health Technol Inform 245:244–248PubMed
32.
Åkesson D, Mueller C (2018) Using 3D direct manipulation for real-time structural design exploration. Comput-Aided Des Applic 15(1):1–10CrossRef
33.
Di Segni R, Kajon G, Di Lella V, Mazzamurro G (1979) Perspectives and limits of holographic applications in radiology (author's transl). Radiol Med 65(4):253–259PubMed
34.
35.
Nakata N, Suzuki N, Hattori A, Hirai N, Miyamoto Y, Fukuda K (2012) Informatics in radiology: intuitive user interface for 3D image manipulation using augmented reality and a smartphone as a remote control. Radiographics 32(4):E169–E174CrossRefPubMed
36.
Elmi-Terander A, Skulason H, Soderman M et al (2016) Surgical navigation technology based on augmented reality and integrated 3D intraoperative imaging: a spine cadaveric feasibility and accuracy study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(21):E1303–E1311CrossRef
37.
Grant EK, Olivieri LJ (2017) The role of 3-D heart models in planning and executing interventional procedures. Can J Cardiol 33(9):1074–1081CrossRefPubMed
38.
Guha D, Alotaibi NM, Nguyen N, Gupta S, McFaul C, Yang VXD (2017) Augmented reality in neurosurgery: a review of current concepts and emerging applications. Can J Neurol Sci 44(3):235–245CrossRefPubMed
39.
Sugimoto M, Yasuda H, Koda K et al (2010) Image overlay navigation by markerless surface registration in gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17(5):629–636CrossRefPubMed
40.
Pratt P, Ives M, Lawton G et al (2018) Through the HoloLens™ looking glass: augmented reality for extremity reconstruction surgery using 3D vascular models with perforating vessels. Eur Radiol Exp 2(1):2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Sharma A, Wang K, Siegel E (2017) Radiologist digital workspace use and preference: a survey-based study. J Digit Imaging 30(6):687–694CrossRefPubMed
42.
Joshi V, Narra VR, Joshi K, Lee K, Melson D (2014) PACS administrators' and radiologists' perspective on the importance of features for PACS selection. J Digit Imaging 27(4):486–495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Luo H, Hao W, Foos DH, Cornelius CW (2006) Automatic image hanging protocol for chest radiographs in PACS. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 10(2):302–311CrossRefPubMed
44.
Lindskold L, Wintell M, Aspelin P, Lundberg N (2012) Simulation of radiology workflow and throughput. Radiol Manage 34(4):47–55PubMed
45.
Benjamin M, Aradi Y, Shreiber R (2010) From shared data to sharing workflow: merging PACS and teleradiology. Eur J Radiol 73(1):3–9CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A review of existing and potential computer user interfaces for modern radiology
Authors
Antoine Iannessi
Pierre-Yves Marcy
Olivier Clatz
Anne-Sophie Bertrand
Maki Sugimoto
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 4/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-018-0620-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Insights into Imaging 4/2018 Go to the issue

Review

Postmortem fetal magnetic resonance imaging: where do we stand?

Review

Clinical applications of diffusion weighted imaging in neuroradiology

Review

Convolutional neural networks: an overview and application in radiology

Pictorial Review

Location, length, and enhancement: systematic approach to differentiating intramedullary spinal cord lesions

Original Article

Grading of carotid artery stenosis with computed tomography angiography: whether to use the narrowest diameter or the cross-sectional area

Guideline

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging