Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 776–782 | Cite as

Of Mice and Roentgen: Radiologist Satisfaction with a Non-conventional 13-Button Mouse—One Institution’s Experience

  • Kevin DentonEmail author
  • Irfanullah Haider
  • Jacqueline Hill
  • Suzanne L. Hunt
  • Ryan Ash


Increasing radiologic exam volume and complexity necessitates leveraging advanced hardware solutions to optimize workflow efficiency. We evaluated radiologist satisfaction of a programmable 13-button non-conventional mouse compared to a conventional three-button mouse in daily interpretation workflow following a brief 2-day trial period. A prospective study was conducted with radiology staff and residents in a tertiary care center from 2015 to 2016. A survey was distributed prior to and after a tutorial and a 2-day non-conventional mouse trial period. The post-survey evaluated usage time, device settings, satisfaction, preferences, and perceived efficiency of both mice. Descriptive analyses, correlations, the Sign test, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to evaluate responses. Fifty-nine participants completed pre- and post-surveys. Several (41%, n = 24) had prior experience with a non-conventional mouse. Prior to the trial, one third of all participants (35.6%, n = 21) reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their conventional mouse. After spending an average of 9.8 h using the non-conventional mouse, there were no statistically significant changes in overall satisfaction with either conventional or non-conventional mice (p = 0.84 and p = 0.39, respectively). However, 76.3% (n = 45) agreed/somewhat agreed they preferred to use the non-conventional mouse in their daily workflow as opposed to the conventional mouse. The non-conventional mouse was also perceived as more efficient (66.1%, n = 39), required less time (62.7%, n = 37) and effort (74.6%, n = 44) to view images, allowed for easier manipulation of windows/images (76.3%, n = 45), and was more comfortable to use (78.0%, n = 46). Although there were no statistically significant shifts in overall satisfaction, participants reported a higher level of satisfaction, perceived efficiency, and preference for a non-conventional 13-button mouse compared to a conventional three-button mouse following a brief, 2-day trial period.


User interface device Picture archiving and communications system Mouse Gaming-mouse Interpretation efficiency 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Exams [Internet]. Paris, France: 1995. [cited 2016 April 5].
  2. 2.
    Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Computer Tomography (CT) Exams [Internet]. Paris, France: 1995. [cited 2016 April 5].
  3. 3.
    Rubin GD, Leipsic J, Joseph Schoepf U, Fleischmann D, Napel S: CT angiography after 20 years: a transformation in cardiovascular disease characterization continues to advance. Radiology. 271(3):633–652, 2014 JunCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brant WE, Helms CA. Fundamentals of Diagnostic Radiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, c2012. Chapter 1 Diagnostic Imaging Methods; p4–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bailey JH, Roth TD, Kohli MD, Heitkamp DE: Real view radiology-impact on search patterns and confidence in radiology education. Academic Radiology. 21(7):859–868, 2014 JulCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sherry CS et al. ACR practice parameter for communication of diagnostic imaging findings. American College of Radiology Practice Parameter. Revision 2014 Oct;(Resolution 11):p2–4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nuance® PowerMic II Produce Flyer: Nuance Communications [Internet]. Burlington (MA); [updated 2015]. [cited December 1 2016.]
  8. 8.
    Horii SC: Electronic imaging workstations: Ergonomic issues and the user Interface. Radiographics. 12(4):773–787, 1992 JulCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weiss DL, Siddiqui KM, Scopelliti J: Radiologist assessment of PACS user interface devices. J Am Coll Radiol. 3(4):265–273, 2006 AprCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liden M, Andersson T, Geijer H: Alternative user interface devices for improved navigation of CT datasets. Journal of Digital Imaging. 24(1):126–134, 2011 FebCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atkins S, Fernquist J, Kirkpatrick AE, Forster BB: Evaluating interaction techniques for stack mode viewing. Journal of Digital Imaging. 22(4):369–382, 2009 AugCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sherbondy AJ, Holmlund D, Rubin GD, Schraedley PK, Winograd T, Napel S: Alternative input devices for efficient navigation of large CT angiography data sets. Radiology. 234(2):391–398, 2005 FebCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG: Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 42(2):377–381, 2009 AprCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    GE Healthcare: Centricity: GE Healthcare [Internet]. Chicago (IL): GE Healthcare Headquarters. [cited Dec 1 2016.]
  15. 15.
    Logitech G700s Product Page: Logitech [Internet]. Newark (CA): Logitech Corporate Offices; [updated 2013]. [cited April 5 2016.]
  16. 16.
    Configuring G700s Mouse On-Board Memory: Logitech [Internet]. Newark (CA): Logitech Corporate Offices; [2014 Aug 31]. [cited 2016 April 5].
  17. 17.
    Logitech Gaming Software: Logitech [Internet]. Newark (CA): Logitech Corporate Offices: [updated 2016 Mar]. [cited April 5 2016].
  18. 18.
    Logitech Product Warranties: Logitech [Internet]. Newark (CA): Logitech Corporate Offices; [updated 2013]. [cited December 30 2016.]
  19. 19.
    Dell Optical Mouse MS116 Product Page: Dell [Internet]. Round Rock (TX). [cited Dec 1 2016.]

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyBrigham & Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations