Comparative Efficacy of New Interfaces for Intra-procedural Imaging Review: the Microsoft Kinect, Hillcrest Labs Loop Pointer, and the Apple iPad

Abstract

We adapted and evaluated the Microsoft Kinect (touchless interface), Hillcrest Labs Loop Pointer (gyroscopic mouse), and the Apple iPad (multi-touch tablet) for intra-procedural imaging review efficacy in a simulation using MIM Software DICOM viewers. Using each device, 29 radiologists executed five basic interactions to complete the overall task of measuring an 8.1-cm hepatic lesion: scroll, window, zoom, pan, and measure. For each interaction, participants assessed the devices on a 3-point subjective scale (3 = highest usability score). The five individual scores were summed to calculate a subjective composite usability score (max 15 points). Overall task time to completion was recorded. Each user also assessed each device for its potential to jeopardize a sterile field. The composite usability scores were as follows: Kinect 9.9 (out of 15.0; SD = 2.8), Loop Pointer 12.9 (SD = 13.5), and iPad 13.5 (SD = 1.8). Mean task completion times were as follows: Kinect 156.7 s (SD = 86.5), Loop Pointer 51.5 s (SD = 30.6), and iPad 41.1 s (SD = 25.3). The mean hepatic lesion measurements were as follows: Kinect was 7.3 cm (SD = 0.9), Loop Pointer 7.8 cm (SD = 1.1), and iPad 8.2 cm (SD = 1.2). The mean deviations from true hepatic lesion measurement were as follows: Kinect 1.0 cm and for both the Loop Pointer and iPad, 0.9 cm (SD = 0.7). The Kinect had the least and iPad had the most subjective concern for compromising the sterile field. A new intra-operative imaging review interface may be near. Most surveyed foresee these devices as useful in procedures, and most do not anticipate problems with a sterile field. An ideal device would combine iPad’s usability and accuracy with the Kinect’s touchless aspect.