Skip to main content
Log in

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

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

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thompson DP, Koller CJ, Eatough JP: Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations. Br J Radiol 80:256–260, 2007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of the AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225, 2005

  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, 2004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Prabhu SP, Gandhi S, Goddard PR: Ergonomics of digital imaging. Br J Radiol 78:582–586, 2005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Krupinski EA, Kallergi M: Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. Radiology 242:671–682, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hirschorn DS, Krupinski EA, Flynn MJ: PACS displays: how to select the right display technology. J Am Coll Radiol 11:1270–1276, 2014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 2014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krupinski E, Reiner BI: Real-time occupational stress and fatigue measurement in medical imaging practice. J Digit Imaging 25:319–324, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reiner BI, Krupinski E: The insidious problem of fatigue in medical imaging practice. J Digit Imaging 25:3–6, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 2010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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, 2012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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, 2015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, 1992

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Krupinski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krupinski, E.A. Diagnostic Accuracy and Visual Search Efficiency: Single 8 MP vs. Dual 5 MP Displays. J Digit Imaging 30, 144–147 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-016-9917-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-016-9917-6

Keywords

Navigation