Differences in coverage patterns in cervical cytology screening

Amy Smith; Alastair G. Gale; David S. Wooding; Kevin J. Purdy

doi:10.1117/12.480087

22 May 2003 Differences in coverage patterns in cervical cytology screening

Amy Smith, Alastair G. Gale, David S. Wooding, Kevin J. Purdy

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 5034, Medical Imaging 2003: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment; (2003) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.480087
Event: Medical Imaging 2003, 2003, San Diego, California, United States

Abstract

The visual screening of cervical smears is a complex process requiring appropriate slide coverage to detect any unusual appearances without making any omission errors. In examining a smear the observer has both to move the microscope stage appropriately to bring different slide areas into view, plus visually search the information presented within the binocular visual field. This study examined the patterns of slide coverage by different individuals when they inspected liquid based cervical smears. A binocular microscope was first adapted in order to record both the physical movement of the stage by the observer and also to access the microscope’s visual field. An image of the area of the smear under the microscope was displayed on a PC monitor and observers’ eye movements were recorded as they searched this. By manually adjusting the microscope controls they also moved the stage and all stage movements and focussing were also recorded. The behaviour was examined of both novices and an expert screener as they searched a number of test cervical smears. It was found that novices adopted a regular examination pattern, which maximized slide coverage, albeit slowly. In contrast, the experienced screener covered the slides faster and more effectively ensuring more overlap between microscope fields.

Citation Download Citation

Amy Smith, Alastair G. Gale, David S. Wooding, and Kevin J. Purdy "Differences in coverage patterns in cervical cytology screening", Proc. SPIE 5034, Medical Imaging 2003: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, (22 May 2003); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.480087

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

;

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE