Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:40:56.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Perception in Context

from Part I - Historical Reflections and Theoretical Foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

By
David Manning
Edited by
Ehsan Samei  and
Elizabeth A. Krupinski
Ehsan Samei
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center, Durham
Elizabeth A. Krupinski
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques , pp. 82 - 92
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, H.H., Myers, K.J. (2003). Foundations of Image Science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Barten, P.G.J. (1992). Physical model for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye. Proc SPIE: Human vision, visual processing, and digital display III, 1666, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barten, P.G.J. (1999). Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and its Effects on Image Quality. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beam, C.A., Krupinski, E.A., Kundel, H.L., Sickles, E.A., Wagner, R.F. (2006). The place of medical image perception in 21st-century health care. J Am Coll Radiol, 3(6), 409–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birkelo, C.C., Chamberlain, W.E, Phelps, P.S. (1947). Tuberculosis case finding: comparison of effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods. JAMA, 133, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brook, O.R., O’Connell, A.M., Thornton, E., Eisenberg, R.L., Mendiratta- Lala, M., Kruskal, J.B. (2010). Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice. RadioGraphics, 30, 1401–1410.Google Scholar
Chakraborty, D.P. (2013). A brief history of FROC paradigm data analysis. Acad Radiol, 20, 915–919.Google Scholar
Chesters, M.S. (1992). Human visual perception and ROC methodology in medical imaging. Phys Med Biol, 37, 1433–1476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dong, L., Chen, Y., Gale, A., Phillips, P. (2016). Eye tracking method compatible with dual-screen mammography workstation. Procedia Comput Sci, 90, 206–211.Google Scholar
Donovan, T., Manning, D.J., Crawford, T. (2008). Performance changes in lung nodule detection following perceptual feedback of eye movements. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 6917, 691703.Google Scholar
Evans, K.K., Birdwell, R.L., Wolfe, J.M. (2013). If you don’t find it often, you often don’t find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS One, 8(5), e64366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garland, L.H. (1949). On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. Radiology, 52, 309–328.Google Scholar
Graber, M.L. (2013). The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf, Suppl 2, ii21–ii27.Google Scholar
Gur, D., Rockette, H.E., Armfield, D.R., Blachar, A., Bogan, J.K., Brancatelli, G., Britton, C.A., Brown, M.L., Davis, P.L., Ferris, J.V., Fuhrman, C.R., Golla, S.K., Katyal, S., Lacomis, J.M., McCook, B.M., Thaete, F.L., Warfel, T.E. (2003). Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology, 228(1), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakim, C.M., Sena, L.C., Degnana, A., Delica, J., Paia, S., Sagreiyaa, H., Sparrowa, M., Thomasa, E., Yannesa, M., Gur, D. (2017). The effect of prevalence of disease on performance of residents and fellows during training for interpreting DBT in a test-train-test observer study. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 10136, 1013603.Google Scholar
Krupinski, E.A. (2010). Current perspectives in medical image perception. Atten Percept Psychophys, 72(5), 1205–1217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krupinski, E.A., Kallergi, M. (2007). Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. Radiology, 242, 671–682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krupinski, E.A., Shartz, K., Caldwell, R., Madsen, M., Berbaum, K. (2017). Does fatigue have any impact on satisfaction of search? Proc SPIE Med Imag, 10136, 1013605-1.Google Scholar
Kundel, H.L. (1979). Images, image quality and observer performance: new horizons in radiology lecture. Radiology, 132, 265–271.Google Scholar
Kundel, H.L. (2006). History of research in medical image perception. J Am Coll Radiol, 3(6), 402–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C.S., Nagy, P.G., Weaver, S.J., Newman-Toker, D.E. (2013). Cognitive and factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. AJR, 201, 611–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallet, S., Halligan, S., Thompson, M., Collins, G.S., Altman, D.G. (2012). Interpreting diagnostic accuracy studies for patient care. BMJ, 344, e3999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metz, C.E. (1978). Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med, 8, 283–298.Google Scholar
Nakhleh, R.E., Nosé, V., Colasacco, C., Fatheree, L.A., Lillemoe, T.J., McCrory, D.C., et al (2016). Interpretive diagnostic error reduction in surgical pathology and cytology. Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 140, 29–40.Google Scholar
National Cancer Intelligence Network (2011). www.ncin.org.uk/publications/data_briefings/cervical_incidence_and_screening (accessed October 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Rossmann, K., Wiley, B. (1970). The central problem in the study of radiographic image quality. Radiology, 96, 113–118.Google Scholar
Royal College of Radiologists. (2006). Standards for the reporting and interpretation of imaging investigations. www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/standards-reporting-and-interpretation-imaging-investigations (accessed October 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Saunders, R.S., Baker, J.A., Delong, D.M., Johnson, J.P., Samei, E. (2007). Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. Med Phys, 34, 3971–3981.Google Scholar
Szczepura, K.R., Manning, D.J. (2016). Validated novel software to measure the conspicuity index of lesions in DICOM images. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 9787, 978703.Google Scholar
Thompson, J.D., Chakraborty, D.P., Szczepura, K., Tootell, A.K., Vamvakas, I., Manning, D.J., Hogg, P. (2016). Effect of reconstruction methods and X-ray tube current–time product on nodule detection in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom: a crossed-modality JAFROC observer study. Med Phys, 43(3), 1265–1274.Google Scholar
Toomey, R.J., Ryan, J.T., McEntee, M.F., Evanoff, M.G., Chakraborty, D.P., McNulty, J.P., Manning, D.J., Thomas, E.M., Brennan, P.C. (2009). Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. AJR, 194, 469–474.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J.M., Horowitz, T.S., Van Wert, M.J., Kenner, N.M., Place, S.S., Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen, 136(4), 623–638.Google Scholar
World Bank. (2016). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator (accessed October 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Zuley, M. (2010). Perceptual issues in reading mammograms. In: Samei, E., Krupinski, E. (eds.) The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–379.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×