The effect of expert knowledge on medical search: medical experts have specialized abilities for detecting serious lesions
- 230 Downloads
How does domain-specific knowledge influence the experts’ performance in their domain of expertise? Specifically, can visual search experts find, with uniform efficiency, any type of target in their domain of expertise? We examined whether acquired knowledge of target importance influences an expert’s visual search performance. In some professional searches (e.g., medical screenings), certain targets are rare; one aim of this study was to examine the extent to which experts miss such targets in their searches. In one experiment, radiologists (medical experts) engaged in a medical lesion search task in which both the importance (i.e., seriousness/gravity) and the prevalence of targets varied. Results showed decreased target detection rates in the low prevalence conditions (i.e., the prevalence effect). Also, experts were better at detecting important (versus unimportant) lesions. Results of an experiment using novices ruled out the possibility that decreased performance with unimportant targets was due to low target noticeability/visibility. Overall, the findings suggest that radiologists do not have a generalized ability to detect any type of lesion; instead, they have acquired a specialized ability to detect only those important lesions relevant for effective medical practices.
KeywordsVisual Search Search Task Target Lesion Search Performance Target Type
R. N. is now at Riken as a postdoctoral researcher. I. M. is now at Kanto Rosai Hospital.
- Allard, F., Graham, S., & Paarsalu, M. E. (1980). Perception in sport: basketball. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 14–21.Google Scholar
- Berbaum, K. S., Franklin, E. A. J., Caldwell, R. T., & Schartz, K. M. (2010). Satisfaction of search in traditional radiographic imaging. In E. Samei & E. Krupinski (Eds.), The handbook of medical image perception and techniques (pp. 107–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Bowditch, R. (1996). Patterns found in false negative cervical cytology. Cytoletter, 3, 22–25.Google Scholar
- Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Maeda, E., Yoshikawa, T., Nakashima, R., Kobayashi, K., Yokosawa, K., Hayashi, N., et al. (2013). Experimental system for measurement of radiologists’ performance by visual search task. Springer Plus, 2(607), 1–6.Google Scholar
- Menneer, T., Barrett, D. J. K., Phillips, L., Donnelly, N., & Cave, K. R. (2004). Search efficiency for multiple targets. Cognitive Technology, 9, 22–25.Google Scholar
- Nakashima, R., Kobayashi, K., Maeda, E., Yoshikawa, T., & Yokosawa, K. (2013). Visual search of experts in medical image reading: the effect of training, target prevalence, and expert knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(166), 1–8.Google Scholar
- Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 541–553.Google Scholar
- Yantis, S., Anderson, B. A., Wampler, E. K., & Laurent, P. A. (2012). Reward and attentional control in visual search. In M. D. Dodd & J. H. Flowers (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: The influence of attention, learning, and motivation on visual search (pp. 91–116). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar