You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither SPIE nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the SPIE website.
20 March 2007Remote vs. head-mounted eye-tracking: a comparison using
radiologists reading mammograms
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.
Claudia Mello-Thoms andDavid Gur
"Remote vs. head-mounted eye-tracking: a comparison using
radiologists reading mammograms", Proc. SPIE 6515, Medical Imaging 2007: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 65150C (20 March 2007); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.706335
The alert did not successfully save. Please try again later.
Claudia Mello-Thoms, David Gur, "Remote vs. head-mounted eye-tracking: a comparison using radiologists reading mammograms," Proc. SPIE 6515, Medical Imaging 2007: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 65150C (20 March 2007); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.706335