Eye position monitoring has been used for decades in Radiology in order to determine how
radiologists interpret medical images. Using these devices several discoveries about the
perception/decision making process have been made, such as the importance of comparisons of
perceived abnormalities with selected areas of the background, the likelihood that a true lesion will
attract visual attention early in the reading process, and the finding that most misses attract
prolonged visual dwell, often comparable to dwell in the location of reported lesions. However, eye
position tracking is a cumbersome process, which often requires the observer to wear a helmet gear
which contains the eye tracker per se and a magnetic head tracker, which allows for the computation
of head position. Observers tend to complain of fatigue after wearing the gear for a prolonged time.
Recently, with the advances made to remote eye-tracking, the use of head-mounted systems seemed
destined to become a thing of the past. In this study we evaluated a remote eye tracking system, and
compared it to a head-mounted system, as radiologists read a case set of one-view mammograms on
a high-resolution display. We compared visual search parameters between the two systems, such as
time to hit the location of the lesion for the first time, amount of dwell time in the location of the
lesion, total time analyzing the image, etc. We also evaluated the observers' impressions of both
systems, and what their perceptions were of the restrictions of each system.