Diagnosing Crime and Diagnosing Disease-II: Visual Pattern Perception and Diagnostic Accuracy
Saty Satya-Murti M.D.
Health Policy Consultant, 2534 Knightbridge Drive, Santa Maria, CA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Joseph J. Lockhart Ph.D.
Forensic Services Division, California Department of State Hospitals, 1305 North “H” Street, #117 Lompoc, CA
Additional information and reprint requests:
Joseph J. Lockhart, Ph.D.
Forensic Services Division
California Department of State Hospitals
1305 North “H” Street, #117
Lompoc
CA 93436
E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorSaty Satya-Murti M.D.
Health Policy Consultant, 2534 Knightbridge Drive, Santa Maria, CA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Joseph J. Lockhart Ph.D.
Forensic Services Division, California Department of State Hospitals, 1305 North “H” Street, #117 Lompoc, CA
Additional information and reprint requests:
Joseph J. Lockhart, Ph.D.
Forensic Services Division
California Department of State Hospitals
1305 North “H” Street, #117
Lompoc
CA 93436
E-mail: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Previously, we reviewed how general cognitive processes might be susceptible to bias across both forensic and clinical fields, and how interdisciplinary comparisons could reduce error. We discuss several examples of clinical tasks which are heavily dependent on visual processing, comparing them to eyewitness identification (EI). We review the “constructive” nature of visual processing, and how contextual factors influence both medical experts and witnesses in decision making and recall. Overall, studies suggest common cognitive factors uniting these visual tasks, in both their strengths and shortcomings. Recently forensic sciences have advocated reducing errors by identifying and controlling nonrelevant information. Such efforts could effectively assist medical diagnosis. We suggest potential remedies for cognitive bias in these tasks. These can generalize across the clinical and forensic domains, including controlling the sequencing of contextual factors. One solution is an agnostic primary reading before incorporation of a complete history and interpretation.
References
- 1Albright TD. Why eyewitnesses fail. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2017; 114(30): 7758–64.
- 2Robertson CT, Kesselheim AS. Blinding as a solution to bias strengthening biomedical science, forensic science, and law. Boston, MA: Elsevier, 2016.
- 3Ball JR, Balogh E. Improving diagnosis in health care: highlights of a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Ann Intern Med 2015; 164(1): 59–61.
- 4Lockhart JJ, Satya-Murti S. Diagnosing crime and diagnosing disease: bias reduction strategies in the forensic and clinical sciences. J Forensic Sci 2017; 62(6): 1534–41.
- 5 Committee on Scientific Approaches to Understanding and Maximizing the Validity and Reliability of Eyewitness Identification in Law Enforcement and the Courts, Committee on Science Technology and Law, Policy and Global Affairs, Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Identifying the culprit: assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015.
- 6Marrin S. Understanding and improving intelligence analysis by learning from other disciplines. Intelligence and Nat Security 2017; 32(5): 539–47.
- 7Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2013; 2(1): 42–52.
- 8Dror IE, Thompson WC, Meissner CA, Kornfield I, Krane D, Saks M, et al. Letter to the Editor – Context management toolbox: a Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU) approach for minimizing cognitive bias in forensic decision making. J Forensic Sci 2015; 60(4): 1111–2.
- 9Hannula DE, Baym CL, Warren DE, Cohen NJ. The eyes know: eye movements as a veridical index of memory. Psychol Sci 2012; 23(3): 278–87.
- 10Krupinski EA, Graham AR, Weinstein RS. Characterizing the development of visual search expertise in pathology residents viewing whole slide images. Hum Pathol 2013; 44(3): 357–64.
- 11Wood G, Batt J, Appelboam A, Harris A, Wilson MR. Exploring the impact of expertise, clinical history, and visual search on electrocardiogram interpretation. Med Decis Making 2014; 34(1): 75–83.
- 12Gigerenzer G, Brighton H. Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top Cogn Sci 2009; 1(1): 107–43.
- 13Dror I. A hierarchy of expert performance. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2016; 5(2): 121–7.
- 14Littlefair S, Brennan P, Reed W, Mello-Thoms C. Does expectation of abnormality affect the search pattern of radiologists when looking for pulmonary nodules? J Digit Imaging 2017; 30(1): 55–62.
- 15Colloff MF, Wade KA, Wixted JT, Maylor EA. A signal-detection analysis of eyewitness identification across the adult lifespan. Psychol Aging 2017; 32(3): 243–58.
- 16Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986; 21(9): 720–33.
- 17Brewer N, Wells GL. The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. J Exp Psychol Appl 2006; 12(1): 11–30.
- 18Cavalcanti RB, Sibbald M. Am I right when I am sure? Data consistency influences the relationship between diagnostic accuracy and certainty. Acad Med 2014; 89(1): 107–13.
- 19Richie M, Josephson SA. Quantifying heuristic bias: anchoring, availability, and representativeness. Teach Learn Med 2017; 1–9.
- 20 Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S., 98 (1977).
- 21Waite S, Scott J, Gale B, Fuchs T, Kolla S, Reede D. Interpretive error in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208(4): 739–49.
- 22Simons DJ, Chabris CF. Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 1999; 28(9): 1059–74.
- 23Drew T, Võ ML-H, Wolfe JM. The invisible gorilla strikes again: sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychol Sci 2013; 24(9): 1848–53.
- 24Fawcett JM, Russell EJ, Peace KA, Christie J. Of guns and geese: a meta-analytic review of the ‘weapon focus’ literature. Psychol Crime Law 2013; 19(1): 35–66.
- 25Kramer TH, Buckhout R, Eugenio P. Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory: attention must be paid. Law Hum Behav 1990; 14(2): 167–84.
- 26Rhodes MG, Anastasi JS. The own-age bias in face recognition: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 2012; 138(1): 146–74.
- 27Behrman BW, Davey SL. Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: an archival analysis. Law Hum Behav 2001; 25(5): 475–91.
- 28 Eyewitness misidentification, Innocence Project; https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ (accessed October 20, 2017).
- 29Wells GL, Loftus EF. Eyewitness memory for people and events. In: AM Goldsten, volume editor, IB Weiner, editor-in-chief. Handbook of psychology. Vol. 11: Forensic psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.
10.1002/0471264385.wei1109 Google Scholar
- 30Palmer MA, Brewer N, Weber N, Nagesh A. The confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification decisions: effects of exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. J Exp Psychol Appl 2013; 19(1): 55–71.
- 31Sporer SL, Penrod S, Read D. Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychol Bull 1995; 118(3): 315–27.
- 32Wells GL, Rydell SM, Seelau EP. The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. J Appl Psych 1993; 78(5): 835–44.
- 33Wells GL, Steblay NK, Dysart JE. Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure. Law Hum Behav 2015; 39(1): 1–14.
- 34Dror IE, Morgan RM, Rando C, Nakhaeizadeh S. Letter to the Editor – The bias snowball and the bias cascade effects: two distinct biases that may impact forensic decision making. J Forensic Sci 2017; 62(3): 832–3.
- 35Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med 1994; 331(2): 69–73.
- 36Brinjikji W, Luetmer PH, Comstock B, Bresnahan BW, Chen LE, Deyo RA, et al. Systematic literature review of imaging features of spinal degeneration in asymptomatic populations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015; 36(4): 811–6.
- 37Loy CT, Irwig L. Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review. JAMA 2004; 292(13): 1602–9.
- 38Littlefair S, Mello-Thoms C, Reed W, Pietryzk M, Lewis S, McEntee M, et al. Increasing Prevalence expectation in thoracic radiology leads to overcall. Acad Radiol 2016; 23(3): 284–9.
- 39Bansal NK, Hagiwara M, Borja MJ, Babb J, Patel SH. Influence of clinical history on MRI interpretation of optic neuropathy. Heliyon 2016; 2(9): e00162.
- 40Sibbald M, Cavalcanti RB. The biasing effect of clinical history on physical examination diagnostic accuracy. Med Educ 2011; 45(8): 827–34.
- 41Taylor GA. Perceptual errors in pediatric radiology. Diagnosis 2017; 4(3): 141–7.
- 42McLendon RE. Errors in surgical neuropathology and the influence of cognitive biases: the psychology of intelligence analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130(5): 613–6.
- 43Elmore JG, Barnhill RL, Elder DE, Longton GM, Pepe MS, Reisch LM, et al. Pathologists' diagnosis of invasive melanoma and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study. BMJ 2017; 357: j2813.
- 44Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA, Geller BM, Onega T, Tosteson ANA, et al. Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA 2015; 313(11): 1122–32.
- 45Moriarty AT, Nayar R, Arnold T, Gearries L, Renshaw A, Thomas N, et al. The Tahoe study: bias in the interpretation of Papanicolaou test results when human papillomavirus status is known. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138(9): 1182–5.
- 46Doxtader EE, Brainard JA, Underwood D, Chute DJ. Knowledge of the HPV status biases cytotechnologists' interpretation of Pap tests originally diagnosed as negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy. Cancer 2017; 125(1): 60–9.
- 47Benbadis SR. “Just like EKGs!” Should EEGs undergo a confirmatory interpretation by a clinical neurophysiologist? Neurology 2013; 80(1 Suppl 1): S47–51.
- 48Tatum WO. Normal “suspicious” EEG. Neurology 2013; 80(1 Suppl 1): S4–11.
- 49Cruz MF, Edwards J, Dinh MM, Barnes EH. The effect of clinical history on accuracy of electrocardiograph interpretation among doctors working in emergency departments. Med J Aust 2012; 197(3): 161–5.
- 50Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL, Meyer AND, Sorensen A, Lenfestey N, et al. Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21(7): 535–57.
- 51Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Making 2015; 35(4): 539–57.
- 52Thompson WC. Determining the proper evidentiary basis for an expert opinion: what do experts need to know and when do they know too much. In: C Robertson, A Kesselheim, editors. Blinding as a solution to bias in biomedical science and the courts: a multidisciplinary approach. New York, NY: Elsevier, 2015; 135–50.
- 53Munsterberg H. On the witness stand: essays on psychology and crime. New York, NY: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1908.
- 54 State v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (N.J. 2011).
- 55 State v. Lawson, 291 P.3d 673 (O.R. 2012).
- 56Faigman DL, Monahan J, Slobogin C. Group to individual (G2i) inference in scientific expert testimony. Univ Chic Law Rev 2014; 81: 417–80.
- 57Zapf PA, Dror IE. Understanding and mitigating bias in forensic evaluation: lessons from forensic science. Int J Forensic Ment Health 2017; 16(3): 227–38.
- 58Valentine T, Fitzgerald RJ. Identifying the culprit : an international perspective on the National Academy of Sciences Report on Eyewitness Identification Evidence: identifying the culprit. Appl Cogn Psychol 2016; 30(1): 135–8.
- 59Jha S, Topol EJ. Adapting to artificial intelligence: radiologists and pathologists as information specialists. JAMA 2016; 316(22): 2353–4.
- 60Ng MC, Gaspard N, Cole AJ, Hoch DB, Cash SS, Bianchi M, et al. The standardization debate: a conflation trap in critical care electroencephalography. Seizure 2015; 24: 52–8.
- 61Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations. JAMA 1997; 277(1): 49–52.
- 62Griscom NT. A suggestion: look at the images first, before you read the history. Radiology 2002; 223(1): 9–10.