Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 144–147 | Cite as

Diagnostic Accuracy and Visual Search Efficiency: Single 8 MP vs. Dual 5 MP Displays

  • Elizabeth A. KrupinskiEmail author


This study compared a single 8 MP vs. dual 5 MP displays for diagnostic accuracy, reading time, number of times the readers zoomed/panned images, and visual search. Six radiologists viewed 60 mammographic cases, once on each display. A sub-set of 15 cases was viewed in a secondary study using eye-tracking. For viewing time, there was significant difference (F = 13.901, p = 0.0002), with 8 MP taking less time (62.04 vs. 68.99 s). There was no significant difference (F = 0.254, p = 0.6145) in zoom/pan use (1.94 vs. 1.89). Total number of fixations was significantly (F = 4.073, p = 0.0466) lower with 8 MP (134.47 vs. 154.29). Number of times readers scanned between images was significantly fewer (F = 10.305, p = 0.0018) with 8 MP (6.83 vs. 8.22). Time to first fixate lesion did not differ (F = 0.126, p = 0.7240). It did not take any longer to detect the lesion as a function of the display configuration. Total time spent on lesion did not differ (F = 0.097, p = 0.7567) (8.59 vs. 8.39). Overall, the single 8 MP display yielded the same diagnostic accuracy as the dual 5 MP displays. The lower resolution did not appear to influence the readers’ ability to detect and view the lesion details, as the eye-position study showed no differences in time to first fixate or total time on the lesions. Nor did the lower resolution result in significant differences in the amount of zooming and panning that the readers did while viewing the cases.


Digital display Image perception Observer performance 


  1. 1.
    Thompson DP, Koller CJ, Eatough JP: Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations. Br J Radiol 80:256–260, 2007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of the AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225, 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wade C, Brennan PC: Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting. Br J Radiol 77:465–471, 2004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butt A, Mahoney M, Savage NW: The impact of computer display performance on the quality of digital radiographs: a review. Aust Dent J 57:16–23, 2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prabhu SP, Gandhi S, Goddard PR: Ergonomics of digital imaging. Br J Radiol 78:582–586, 2005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krupinski EA, Kallergi M: Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. Radiology 242:671–682, 2007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hirschorn DS, Krupinski EA, Flynn MJ: PACS displays: how to select the right display technology. J Am Coll Radiol 11:1270–1276, 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kagadis GC, Walz-Flannigan A, Krupinski EA, Nagy PG, Katsanos K, Diamantopoulos A, Langer SG: Medical imaging displays and their use in image interpretation. RadioGraphics 33:275–290, 2013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thompson AC, Kremer MJ, Biswal S, Rebner M, Rebner RE, Thomas WR, Edwards SD, Thompson MO, Ikeda DM: Factors associated with repetitive strain, and strategies to reduce injury among breast-imaging radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol 11:1074–1079, 2014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boiselle PM, Levine D, Horwich PJ, Barbaras L, Siegal D, Shillue K, Affeln D: Repettive stress symptoms in radiology: prevalence and response to ergonomic interventions. J Am Coll Radiol 5:919–923, 2008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krupinski E, Reiner BI: Real-time occupational stress and fatigue measurement in medical imaging practice. J Digit Imaging 25:319–324, 2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reiner BI, Krupinski E: The insidious problem of fatigue in medical imaging practice. J Digit Imaging 25:3–6, 2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reiner BI, Krupinski E: Demystifying occupational stress and fatigue through the creation of an adaptive end-user profiling system. J Digit Imaging 25:201–205, 2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Kim J: Long radiology workdays reduce detection and accommodation accuracy. J Am Coll Radiol 7:698–704, 2010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS, Caldwell RT, Schartz KM, Madsen MT, Kramer DJ: Do long radiology workdays affect nodule detection in dynamic CT interpretation? J Am Coll Radiol 9:191–198, 2012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taylor-Phillips S, Elze MC, Krupinski EA, Dennick K, Gale AG, Clarke A, Mello-Thoms C: Retrospective review of the drop in observer detection performance over time in lesion-enriched experimental studies. J Digit Imaging 28:32–40, 2015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investig Radiol 27:723–731, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology & Imaging SciencesEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations