Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Iterative interim techniques for reduced costs and a better mammography workstation: An opinion

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The promise of digital mammography has focused considerable resources on the challenges of mammography workstations, but the risk of wasted time and resources in such efforts is very high. Although final testing of the workstation’s image quality and ergonomics is common, a number of interim evaluation and refinement techniques can be applied throughout the design and development process. The use of such techniques holds potential not only to save time and money but also to produce a superior workstation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Behlen F, Blume H, Flynn MJ, et al: Report of the Working Group on Digital Mammography: Digital Displays and Workstation Design, Sponsored by USPHS Office on Women’s Health and NCI, March 9–10, Washington, DC

  2. Mantei MM, Teorey TJ: Cost/benefit analysis for incorporating human factors in the software life cycle. CACM, April, 1988

  3. Horii CS: Electronic Imaging Workstations: Ergonomic issues and the User Interface, Radiographics 12:773–787, 1992

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Horii CS, Horii HN, Mun SK, et al: Environmental designs for reading from imaging workstations: Ergonomic and architectural features. J Digit Imaging 2:156–162, 1989

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson CW: Impact of working environments upon human-machine dialogues: A formal logic for the integrated specification of physical and cognitive ergonomic constraints on user interface design. Ergonomics 39:512–530, 1996

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gale AS, Worthington BS: The Utility of Scanning Strategies in Radiology, Eye Movements and Psychological Functions: International Views. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beard DV, Bream P, Pisano ED, et al: A pilot study of eye movement during mammography interpretation: Eyetracker results and workstation design implications. J Digit Imaging Feb, 1996

  8. Huang HK, Wong AWK, Zhu X: Performance of asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) local are and wide area networks for medical image transmission in clinical environment. J Comput Med Imaging Graphics 21:165–173, 1997

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Roehrig H, Blume H, Browne M: Performance test and quality control of cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging 3:134–150, 1990

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Krupinski E, Roehrig H: Influence of monitor luminance and tone scale on Observer Detection Performance. Medical Imaging 98: Image Perception 3340: 1998

    Google Scholar 

  11. Metz CE: Basic Principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298, 1978

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Metz CE: Evaluation of digital mammography by ROC analysis, in Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM, (eds): 3rd International Workshop on Digital Mammography, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science (Excerpta Medica International Congress series), 1996, pp 61–68

  13. Metz CE: Evaluation of radiologic imaging systems by ROC analysis. Med Imag Inform Sci 12:113–121, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  14. McKay EN: Developing User Interfaces for Microsoft Windows. Redmond, WA, Microsoft Press, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  15. Apple Computer Inc: Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hackos JT, Redish JC: User and Task Analysis for Interface Design, New York, NY, Wiley, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dix AJ, Finlay JE, Abowd GD, et al: Human-Computer Interaction (ed 2) London, England, Prentice Hall, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  18. Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  19. Beard DV, Smith DK, Denelsbeck KM: Quick and Dirty GOMS: A Case Study of Computed Tomography Interpretation. J Human Computer Interaction 11:157–180, 1996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Beard DV, Molina PL, Muller KE, et al: Interpretation Time of serial chest CT examinations with stacked-metaphor workstation versus film alternator. J Radiol 197:753–758, 1995

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Beard DV, Hemminger BM, Denelsbeck KM, et al: Cognitive load during CT interpretation, SPIE Medical Imaging: Image Perception, 1994

  22. Kilpatrick KE, Mackenzie RS, Kisko TM: Expanded function auxiliaries in general dentistry: A computer simulation. Health Services Research. vol 7:288–300, 1972

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Information Systems, Idaho State University, 83209-8020, Pocatello, ID

    David V. Beard (Associate Professor of Computer Information Systems)

Authors
  1. David V. Beard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beard, D.V. Iterative interim techniques for reduced costs and a better mammography workstation: An opinion. J Digit Imaging 13, 170–174 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168391

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168391

Key words

Search

Navigation