Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

What do experts look at and what do experts find when reading mammograms?

What do experts look at and what do experts find when reading mammograms? Abstract.Purpose: Radiologists sometimes fail to report clearly visible, clinically significant findings. Eye tracking can provide insight into the causes of such errors.Approach: We tracked eye movements of 17 radiologists, searching for masses in 80 mammograms (60 with masses).Results: Errors were classified using the Kundel et al. (1978) taxonomy: search errors (target never fixated), recognition errors (fixated <500  ms), or decision errors (fixated >500  ms). Error proportions replicated Krupinski (1996): search 25%, recognition 25%, and decision 50%. Interestingly, we found few differences between experts and residents in accuracy or eye movement metrics. Error categorization depends on the definition of the useful field of view (UFOV) around fixation. We explored different UFOV definitions, based on targeting saccades and search saccades. Targeting saccades averaged slightly longer than search saccades. Of most interest, we found that the probability that the eyes would move to the target on the next saccade or even on one of the next three saccades was strikingly low (∼33  %  , even when the eyes were <2  deg from the target). This makes it clear that observers do not fully process everything within a UFOV. Using a probabilistic UFOV, we find, unsurprisingly, that observers cover more of the image when no target is present than when it is found. Interestingly, we do not find evidence that observers cover too little of the image on trials when they miss the target.Conclusions: These results indicate that many errors in mammography reflect failed deployment of attention; not failure to fixate clinically significant locations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Medical Imaging SPIE

What do experts look at and what do experts find when reading mammograms?

Download PDF
22 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/spie/what-do-experts-look-at-and-what-do-experts-find-when-reading-uWaHPWI0lf
Publisher
SPIE
Copyright
© 2021 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)
ISSN
2329-4302
eISSN
2329-4310
DOI
10.1117/1.jmi.8.4.045501
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract.Purpose: Radiologists sometimes fail to report clearly visible, clinically significant findings. Eye tracking can provide insight into the causes of such errors.Approach: We tracked eye movements of 17 radiologists, searching for masses in 80 mammograms (60 with masses).Results: Errors were classified using the Kundel et al. (1978) taxonomy: search errors (target never fixated), recognition errors (fixated <500  ms), or decision errors (fixated >500  ms). Error proportions replicated Krupinski (1996): search 25%, recognition 25%, and decision 50%. Interestingly, we found few differences between experts and residents in accuracy or eye movement metrics. Error categorization depends on the definition of the useful field of view (UFOV) around fixation. We explored different UFOV definitions, based on targeting saccades and search saccades. Targeting saccades averaged slightly longer than search saccades. Of most interest, we found that the probability that the eyes would move to the target on the next saccade or even on one of the next three saccades was strikingly low (∼33  %  , even when the eyes were <2  deg from the target). This makes it clear that observers do not fully process everything within a UFOV. Using a probabilistic UFOV, we find, unsurprisingly, that observers cover more of the image when no target is present than when it is found. Interestingly, we do not find evidence that observers cover too little of the image on trials when they miss the target.Conclusions: These results indicate that many errors in mammography reflect failed deployment of attention; not failure to fixate clinically significant locations.

Journal

Journal of Medical Imaging – SPIE

Published: Jul 1, 2021

Keywords: mammogram; useful field of view; eye movements; Attention; visual search

References

  • Visual search in scenes involves selective and non-selective pathways
    Wolfe, J. M.
  • Scanpaths in saccadic eye movements while viewing and recognizing patterns
    Noton, D.; Stark, L.
  • Scanpaths in eye movements during pattern perception
    Noton, D.; Stark, L.
  • Visual noise causes tunnel vision
    Mackworth, N. H.
  • Visual localization: age and practice
    Sekuler, R.; Ball, K.
  • Some aspects of the selective process in the functional visual field
    Sanders, A. F.
  • The impending demise of the item in visual search
    Hulleman, J.; Olivers, C. N. L.
  • Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection
    Kundel, H. L.; Nodine, C. F.; Carmody, D.
  • Breast-cancer screening--viewpoint of the IARC Working Group
    Lauby-Secretan, B.
  • Risk-based screening mammography for women aged <40: outcomes from the national mammography database
    Lee, C. S.
  • Breast cancer screening for average-risk women: recommendations from the ACR commission on breast imaging
    Monticciolo, D. L.
  • Rate of recall after breast cancer screening in the United States is twice that in the United Kingdom
    Gottlieb, S.
  • Factors impacting false positive recall in screening mammography
    Honig, E. L.
  • Assessment of radiologist performance in breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography
    Sprague, B. L.
  • The national mammography database: preliminary data
    Lee, C. S.
  • Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms
    Lerman, C.
  • Quality of life following a false positive mammogram
    Gram, I. T.; Lund, E.; Slenker, S.E.
  • Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment
    Brett, J.; Austoker, J.; Ong, G.
  • Retrospectively detectable carcinomas: review of the literature
    Boyer, B.
  • Blinded review of retrospectively visible unreported breast cancers: an eye-position analysis
    Nodine, C. F.
  • Visual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms
    Krupinski, E. A.
  • Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography
    Bird, R. E.; Wallace, T. W.; Yankaskas, B. C.
  • Visual search in breast imaging
    Gandomkar, Z.; Mello-Thoms, C.
  • Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses
    Nodine, C. F.
  • A review of research into the development of radiologic expertise: implications for computer-based training
    Taylor, P. M.
  • A review of factors influencing radiologists’ visual search behaviour
    Ganesan, A.
  • Recurrence quantification analysis of radiologists’ scanpaths when interpreting mammograms
    Gandomkar, Z.
  • Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography
    Beam, C. A.; Conant, E. F.; Sickles, E. A.
  • Mammographic breast density: comparison across women with conclusive and inconclusive mammography reports
    Ekpo, E. U.
  • The invisible gorilla strikes again: sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers
    Drew, T.; Vo, M. L.-H.; Wolfe, J. M.
  • Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events
    Simons, D. J.; Chabris, C. F.
  • Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review
    Lumbreras, B.; Donat, L.; Hernández-Aguado, I.
  • Searching for lung nodules. A comparison of human performance with random and systematic scanning models
    Kundel, H. L.
  • An analysis of perceptual and cognitive factors in radiographic interpretation
    Carmody, D. P.; Nodine, C. F.; Kundel, H. L.
  • Variations in the functional visual field for detection of lung nodules on chest computed tomography: impact of nodule size, distance, and local lung complexity
    Ebner, L.
  • Measurement of the useful field of view for single slices of different imaging modalities and targets
    Lago, M.
  • Visual crowding
    Levi, D. M.
  • Guided Search 6.0: an updated model of visual search
    Wolfe, J. M.
  • A half-second glimpse often lets radiologists identify breast cancer cases even when viewing the mammogram of the opposite breast
    Evans, K.
  • Uncertainty modeling for ontology-based mammography annotation with intelligent BI-RADS scoring
    Bulu, H.; Alpkocak, A.; Balci, P.
  • Finding cancer in mammograms: if you know it’s there, do you know where?
    Carrigan, A. J.; Wardle, S. G.; Rich, A. N.
  • Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search
    Wolfe, J. M.; Van Wert, M. J.
  • Useful Field of View shows why we miss the search target when we “look at” it
    Wu, C.-C.; Wolfe, J.M.
  • Normal values for the full visual field, corrected for age- and reaction time, using semiautomated kinetic testing on the octopus 900 perimeter
    Grobbel, J.
  • Modeling Lag-2 revisits to understand trade-offs in mixed control of fixation termination during visual search
    Godwin, H. J.; Reichle, E. D.; Menneer, T.
  • UFOV Mammography Exp. 2
    Wolfe, J.
  • Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Studies of the psycho-physiology of roentgen image perception
    Tuddenham, W. J.
  • Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology
    Berbaum, K. S.
  • Satisfaction of search in traditional radiographic imaging
    Berbaum, K. S.; Krupinski, E. A.; Samei, E.
  • A taxonomy of errors in multiple-target visual search
    Cain, M. S.; Adamo, S. H.; Mitroff, S. R.
  • Sunfish foraging among patches: the patch departure decision
    DeVries, D. R.; Stein, R. A.; Chesson, P. L.
  • When is it time to move to the next raspberry bush? Foraging rules in human visual search
    Wolfe, J. M.
  • Rare targets are often missed in visual search
    Wolfe, J. M.; Horowitz, T. S.; Kenner, N. M.
  • If you don’t find it often, you often don’t find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening
    Evans, K. K.; Birdwell, R. L.; Wolfe, J. M.
  • Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks
    Wolfe, J. M.