A review of factors influencing radiologists’ visual search behaviour
Corresponding Author
Aarthi Ganesan
The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Correspondence
Ms Aarthi Ganesan, The University of Sydney, 75 East Street, Lidcombe, Sydney, NSW 2141, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorMaram Alakhras
The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorPatrick C Brennan
The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorClaudia Mello-Thoms
The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Aarthi Ganesan
The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Correspondence
Ms Aarthi Ganesan, The University of Sydney, 75 East Street, Lidcombe, Sydney, NSW 2141, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorMaram Alakhras
The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorPatrick C Brennan
The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorClaudia Mello-Thoms
The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Search for more papers by this authorSummary
This narrative literature review aims to identify the various factors that have significant impact on radiologists’ visual search patterns. Identifying the factors that influences readers’ visual search behaviour helps to understand their perception and interpretation of medical images, which in turn could lead to the development and implementation of effective strategies that could aid in improving the ability to detect abnormalities. Databases including PubMed, MedLine, Web of Science and ScienceDirect were searched using terms ‘visual search’, ‘eye-tracking’, ‘radiology OR radiography’, ‘mammogram OR mammography’ published since the early 1960s until June 30, 2016. Some of the factors that have been identified to significantly influence radiologists’ visual search patterns were (i) readers’ expertise, (ii) Satisfaction of Search, (iii) readers’ visual fatigue, (iv) readers’ confidence in reporting abnormalities, (v) training received and (vi) readers’ prior knowledge. Readers’ level of expertise was the factor that has been identified to have the most significant impact on their visual search pattern. Eye-tracking studies have shown the differences in visual search patterns of readers with different levels of experience and not so surprisingly, more experienced readers have shown effective visual search strategies. Readers’ expertise has also been found to have significant impact in their confidence in reporting abnormalities and their ability to discriminate lesions from background structures in medical images.
References
- 1Graber M. Diagnostic errors in medicine: a case of neglect. Joint Comm J on Quality Patient Saf 2005; 31: 106–13.
- 2Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE. Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 611–7.
- 3Brady A, Laoide RÓ, McCarthy P, McDermott R. Discrepancy and error in radiology: concepts, causes and consequences. Ulster Med J 2012; 81: 3–9.
- 4Kundel HL, Nodine CF. Interpreting chest radiographs without visual search 1. Radiology 1975; 116: 527–32.
- 5Nodine CF, Kundel HL. Using eye movements to study visual search and to improve tumor detection. Radiographics 1987; 7: 1241–50.
- 6Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Toto L. Searching for lung nodules: The guidance of visual scanning. Invest Radiol 1991; 26: 777–81.
- 7Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Conant EF, Weinstein SP. Holistic component of image perception in mammogram interpretation: gaze-tracking study 1. Radiology 2007; 242: 396–402.
- 8Kundel HL, ed. Reader error, object recognition, and visual search. Medical Imaging 2004; 2004: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 9Kundel HL, Nodine CF (eds). Modeling visual search during mammogram viewing. Proc of SPIE Vol; 2004.
- 10Nodine C, Kundel H. The cognitive side of visual search in radiology. Eye movements: From physiology to cognition, 1987; 573–82.
- 11Kundel HL, ed. How to minimize perceptual error and maximize expertise in medical imaging. Med Imag Int Soc Optics Photonics 2007; 6515: 651508.
- 12Christensen EE, Murry RC, Holland K, Reynolds J, Landay M, Moore J. The effect of search time on perception. Radiology 1981; 138: 361–5.
- 13Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Kundel HL, Weinstein SP. Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 917–23.
- 14Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Carmody D. Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. Invest Radiol 1978; 13: 175–81.
- 15Tuddenham WJ. Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis: studies of the psychophysiology of roentgen image perception memorial fund lecture 1. Radiology 1962; 78: 694–704.
- 16Berbaum KS, Franken E, Dorfman DD et al. Cause of satisfaction of search effects in contrast studies of the abdomen. Acad Radiol 1996; 3: 815–26.
- 17Mello-Thoms C, Trieu P, Brennan P, eds. Going on with false beliefs: What if satisfaction of search was really suppression of recognition? SPIE Medical Imaging: International Society for Optics and Photonics 2014.
- 18Berbaum KS, Brandser EA, Franken E, Dorfman DD, Caldwell RT, Krupinski EA. Gaze dwell times on acute trauma injuries missed because of satisfaction of search. Acad Radiol 2001; 8: 304–14.
- 19Pow RE, Mello-Thoms C, Brennan P. Evaluation of the effect of double reporting on test accuracy in screening and diagnostic imaging studies: a review of the evidence. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2016; 60: 306–14.
- 20Mello-Thoms C, Dunn S, Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Weinstein SP. The perception of breast cancer: what differentiates missed from reported cancers in mammography? Acad Radiol 2002; 9: 1004–12.
- 21Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG et al. Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1675–84.
- 22Sakai S, Soeda H, Takahashi N et al. Computer-aided nodule detection on digital chest radiography: validation test on consecutive T1 cases of resectable lung cancer. J Digit Imaging 2006; 19: 376–82.
- 23Brennan P, Tapia K, Ryan J, Lee W, eds. BREAST: a novel method to improve the diagnostic efficacy of mammography. SPIE Medical Imaging: International Society for Optics and Photonics 2013; 8673: 867307.
10.1117/12.2007451 Google Scholar
- 24Chen Y, Gale AG, Scott H (eds). Mammographic interpretation training: how useful is handheld technology? Medical Imaging: International Society for Optics and Photonics 2008; 6917: 691712.
- 25Tuddenham WJ, Calvert WP. Visual search patterns in roentgen diagnosis 1. Radiology 1961; 76: 255–6.
- 26Thomas EL, Lansdown E. Visual search patterns of radiologists in training 1. Radiology 1963; 81: 288–92.
- 27Carmody DP, Kundel HL, Toto LC. Comparison scans while reading chest images taught, but not practiced. Invest Radiol 1984; 19: 462–6.
- 28Alamudun FT, Yoon H-J, Hudson K, Morin-Ducote G, Tourassi G (eds). Fractal analysis of radiologists’ visual scanning pattern in screening mammography. SPIE Medical Imaging; 2015: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 29Kundel HL, La Follette Jr PS. Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images 1. Radiology 1972; 103: 523–8.
- 30Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Thickman D, Toto L. Searching for lung nodules a comparison of human performance with random and systematic scanning models. Invest Radiol 1987; 22: 417–22.
- 31Manning D, Ethell SC, Crawford T (eds). Eye-tracking AFROC study of the influence of experience and training on chest X-ray interpretation. Medical Imaging 2003; 2003: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 32Manning D, Ethell S, Donovan T, Crawford T. How do radiologists do it? The influence of experience and training on searching for chest nodules. Radiography 2006; 12: 134–42.
10.1016/j.radi.2005.02.003 Google Scholar
- 33Turgeon DP, Lam EW. Influence of experience and training on dental students’ examination performance regarding panoramic images. J Dent Educ 2016; 80: 156–64.
- 34Krupinski EA (ed.) Influence of experience on scanning strategies in mammography. Medical Imaging 1996; 1996: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 35Krupinski EA. Visual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms. Acad Radiol 1996; 3: 137–44.
- 36Krupinski EA (ed.) Medical image perception: Evaluating the role of experience. Electronic Imaging; 2000: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 37Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Mello-Thoms C et al. How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 1999; 6: 575–85.
- 38Gunderman R, Williamson K, Fraley R, Steele J. Expertise: implications for radiological education. Acad Radiol 2001; 8: 1252–6.
- 39Mello-Thoms C, Nodine CF, Kundel HL (eds). Relating image-based features to mammogram interpretation. Medical Imaging 2002; 2002: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 40Mello-Thoms C. Perception of breast cancer: eye-position analysis of mammogram interpretation. Acad Radiol 2003; 10: 4–12.
- 41Mello-Thoms C, Nodine CF, Kundel HL. The Problem of Image Interpretation in Mammography: How Do Radiologists See What They Think They See? Digital Mammography: Springer; 2003. pp. 557–61
- 42Gale A, Johnson F (eds). Lung tumour identification: decision-making and comparison scanning. European Conference on Eye Movements (2nd: 1983: Nottingham, England): Theoretical and applied aspects of eye movement research: selected/edited proceedings of the Second European Conference on Eye Movements, Nottingham, England, 19-23 September, 1983; 1984: Elsevier.
- 43Mugglestone MD, Gale AG, Wilson A (eds). Perceptual processes involved in mammographic film interpretation. Medical Imaging 1997; 1997: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 44Mugglestone MD, Gale AG, Cowley HC, Wilson A (eds). Defining the perceptual processes involved with mammographic diagnostic errors. Medical Imaging 1996; 1996: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 45Mello-Thoms C. How does the perception of a lesion influence visual search strategy in mammogram reading? Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 275–88.
- 46Mello-Thoms C (ed.) How much agreement is there in the visual search strategy of experts reading mammograms? Medical Imaging; 2008: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 47Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Lauver SC, Toto LC (eds). Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses. Medical Imaging 1996; 1996: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 48Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Krupinski EA. Computer-displayed eye position as a visual aid to pulmonary nodule interpretation. Invest Radiol 1990; 25: 890–6.
- 49Hu CH, Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Krupinski EA, Toto LC. Searching for bone fractures: a comparison with pulmonary nodule search. Acad Radiol 1994; 1: 25–32.
- 50Mello-Thoms C, Hardesty L, Sumkin J et al. Effects of lesion conspicuity on visual search in mammogram reading 1. Acad Radiol 2005; 12: 830–40.
- 51Mello-Thoms C, Dunn SM, Nodine CF, Kundel HL. The perception of breast cancers-a spatial frequency analysis of what differentiates missed from reported cancers. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2003; 22: 1297–306.
- 52Samuel S, Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Toto LC. Mechanism of satisfaction of search: eye position recordings in the reading of chest radiographs. Radiology 1995; 194: 895–902.
- 53Berbaum KS, Franken EAJr, Dorfman DD et al. Time course of satisfaction of search. Invest Radiol 1991; 26: 640–8.
- 54Berbaum KS, Franken EAJr, Dorfman DD et al. Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. Invest Radiol 1990; 25: 133–40.
- 55Berbaum KS, Franken E, Dorfman DD et al. Role of faulty visual search in the satisfaction of search effect in chest radiography. Acad Radiol 1998; 5: 9–19.
- 56Berbaum K, Franken EA, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM. Can a checklist reduce SOS errors in chest radiography? Acad Radiol 2006; 13: 296–304.
- 57Berbaum KS, Franken E, Dorfman DD, Caldwell RT, Lu CH. Can order of report prevent satisfaction of search in abdominal contrast studies?. Acad Radiol 2005; 12: 74–84.
- 58Krupinski EA (ed.) Reader fatigue interpreting mammograms. International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Springer 2010.
- 59Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell R (eds). Impact of visual fatigue on observer performance. SPIE Medical Imaging; 2009: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 60Vertinsky T, Forster B. Prevalence of eye strain among radiologists: influence of viewing variables on symptoms. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 681–6.
- 61Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS (eds). Does reader visual fatigue impact interpretation accuracy? SPIE Medical Imaging; 2010: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 62Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Dallas W, Fan J (eds). Compensating for display deficiencies when displaying softcopy mammograms. Medical Imaging; 2005: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 63Reed WM, Chow SLC, Chew LE, Brennan PC. Can prevalence expectations drive radiologists’ behavior? Acad Radiol 2014; 21: 450–6.
- 64Gur D, Bandos AI, Fuhrman CR, Klym AH, King JL, Rockette HE. The prevalence effect in a laboratory environment: changing the confidence ratings. Acad Radiol 2007; 14: 49–53.
- 65Carney PA, Bogart TA, Geller BM et al. Association between time spent interpreting, level of confidence, and accuracy of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198: 970–8.
- 66Voisin S, Pinto F, Xu S, Morin-Ducote G, Hudson K, Tourassi GD (eds). Investigating the association of eye gaze pattern and diagnostic error in mammography. SPIE Medical Imaging; 2013: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
- 67Saunders R, Samei E. Improving mammographic decision accuracy by incorporating observer ratings with interpretation time. British J Radiol 2014; 79(special_issue_2): S117–S22.
10.1259/bjr/96931332 Google Scholar
- 68Grimm LJ, Kuzmiak CM, Ghate SV, Yoon SC, Mazurowski MA. Radiology resident mammography training: interpretation difficulty and error-making patterns. Acad Radiol 2014; 21: 888–92.
- 69Swensson RG, Hessel SJ, Herman PG. Omissions in radiology: Faulty search or stringent reporting criteria? 1. Radiology 1977; 123: 563–7.
- 70Swensson RG, Hessel SJ, Herman PG. Radiographic interpretation with and without search visual search aids the recognition of chest pathology. Invest Radiol 1982; 17: 145–51.
- 71Swensson RG, Hessel SJ, Herman PG. The value of searching films without specific preconceptions. Invest Radiol 1985; 20: 100–7.
- 72Swensson R, Theodore G. Search and nonsearch protocols for radiographic consultation. Radiology 1990; 177: 851–6.
- 73Berbaum KS, El-Khoury G, Franken E Jr, Kathol M, Montgomery W, Hesson W. Impact of clinical history on fracture detection with radiography. Radiology 1988; 168: 507–11.
- 74Rutledge A, McEntee M, Rainford L, O'Grady M, McCarthy K, Butler M (eds). The impact of clinical indications on visual search behaviour in skeletal radiographs. Proc of SPIE Vol; 2011.
- 75Berbaum KS, Franken EA JR, Anderson KL et al. The influence of clinical history on visual search with single and multiple abnormalities. Invest Radiol 1993; 28: 191–201.
- 76Berbaum K, Franken E Jr, Dorfman D et al. Tentative diagnoses facilitate the detection of diverse lesions in chest radiographs. Invest Radiol 1986; 21: 532–9.
- 77Berbaum KS, Franken EA Jr, Dorfman DD, Barloon TJ. Influence of clinical history upon detection of nodules and other lesions. Invest Radiol 1988; 23: 48–55.
- 78Littlefair S, Brennan P, Mello-Thoms C et al. Outcomes knowledge may bias radiological decision-making. Acad Radiol 2016; 23: 760–7.
- 79Parker TW, Kelsey CA, Moseley R Jr, Mettler FA Jr, Garcia JF, Briscoe DE. Directed versus free search for nodules in chest radiographs. Invest Radiol 1981; 17: 152–5.
- 80Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations. JAMA 1997; 277: 49–52.
- 81Loy CT, Irwig L. Accuracy of diagnostic tests read with and without clinical information: a systematic review. JAMA 2004; 292: 1602–9.