Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques

, Volume 17, Issue 9, pp 1475–1480

Reaction times and the decision-making process in endoscopic surgery

Original article


Background: There are times during endoscopic procedures when the displayed surgical field does not align with the actual field due to rotation of the camera. The surgeon’s performance may deteriorate under this situation. However, the effects of misalignment on the decision-making processes during endoscopic procedures have not been fully explored. The present study addresses this problem and suggests a technique that may be used to alleviate it. Methods: Two experiments were completed in a mock endoscopic surgical setup where the image of the work plane inside the training box was either projected on a vertical monitor placed at eye level or superimposed over the training box by means of a half-silvered mirror. The work plane consisted of a start plate and four target plates. The experimenter varied the number of choices of target location among one, two, and four target choices. Rotating the camera about its longitudinal axis misaligned the displayed and the actual work plane. There were two experiments that differed in task difficulty. The task in experiment 1 was to touch the target plate, whereas the task in experiment 2 was to reach, grasp, and transport the object from the target to the start plate. Results: Experiment 1 showed that reaction time increased with the number of the choices for a touch task, in accordance with the Hick-Hyman law. Using a grasp-and-transport task, experiment 2 replicated experiment 1 and extended the results to show that the use of a superimposed image display facilitated the decision-making process, leading to shorter reaction times compared to the vertical image display. Discussion: During endoscopic procedures, the surgeon needs to translate indirect perceptions to instrument-mediated actions by “mapping” them through sensorimotor integration. The superimposed image alleviates the mental load of spatial transformations by reducing the difficulty of the required sensorimotor mapping. These findings have important implications for the design of high-quality superimposed display technologies.


Endoscopic decision making Sensorimotor integration Task complexity Surgical training Surgical skills Ergonomics 


  1. 1.
    Berguer, R, Forkey, DL, Smith, WD 1999Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery.Surg Endosc13466468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berguer, R, Smith, WD, Chung, YH 2001Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery.Surg Endosc1512041207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breedveld, P, Wentink, M 2001Eye–hand coordination in laparoscopy: an overview of experiments and supporting aids.Min Invas Ther All Technol10155162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cresswell, AB, Macmillan, AIM, Hanna, GB, Cuschieri, A 1999Methods for improving performance under reverse alignment conditions during endoscopic surgery.Surg Endosc13591594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuschieri, A 1995Visual displays and visual perception in minimal access surgery.Semin Laparosc Surg2209214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gallagher, AC, McClure, N, McGuigan, J 1998An ergonomic analysis of the “fulcrum effect” in endoscopic skill acquisition.Endoscopy30617620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graham ED, MacKenzie CL (1995) Pointing on a computer display. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 295. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley, 95. New York: pp. 314–315Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Graham ED, MacKenzie CL (1996) Physical versus virtual pointing. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 296. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley, New York: pp 292–299Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanna, GB, Shimi, S, Cuschieri, A 1997Influence of direction of view, target-to-endoscope distance and manipulation angle on endoscopic knot tying.Br J Surg8414061464Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanna, GB, Shimi, S, Cuschieri, A 1998Task performance in endoscopic surgery is influenced by location of the image display.Ann Surg227481484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hick, WD 1952On the rate of gain of information.Q J Exp Psychol41126Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jeannerod, M, Decety, J 1990

    The accuracy of visuomotor transformation: an investigation into the mechanisms of visual recognition of objects.

    Goodale, M eds. Vision and action: the control of grasping.Ablex Publishing Corp.Norwood, NJ3348
    Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, W, Tendick, F, Stark, L 1987Visual enhancement in pick-and-place task: human operators controlling a simulated cylindrical manipulation.IEEE J Robotic Autom3418425Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lynos, J, Elliott, D, Ricker, KL, Weeks, DJ, Chua, R 1999Action-centred attention in virtual environments.Can J Exp Psychol53176178Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacKenzie CL, Ibboston JA, Cao CGL, Lomax AJ (1998) Intelligent tools for minimally invasive surgery: safety and error issues. In: Proceeding of Enhancing Patient Safety and Reducing Errors in Health Care,Chicago: National Safety Foundation, pp 226–229Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mandryk, RL, MacKenzie, CL 1999

    Superimposing display space on workspace in the context of endoscopic surgery.

    Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors and Computing SystemsCHI 99, ACM Press, Addison-WesleyNew York284285
    Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jennings, RW, Tharp, G, Stark, L 1993Sensing and manipulation problems in endoscopic surgery: experiment, analysis, and observation.Presence26681Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of KinesiologySimon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BCCanada V5A 1S6

Personalised recommendations