Dataset Information

An expert advantage in detecting unfamiliar visual signals in noise.

ABSTRACT: Diagnostic radiologists are experts in discriminating and classifying medical images for clinically significant anomalies. Does their perceptual expertise confer an advantage in unfamiliar visual tasks? Here, this issue was investigated by comparing the performance of 10 radiologists and 2 groups of novices on the ability to detect novel visual signals: band-limited textures in noise. Observers performed a yes/no detection task in which texture spatial frequency and external noise levels were varied. The task was performed on two consecutive days. Contrast thresholds and response bias were measured. Contrast thresholds of radiologists were superior to the control groups in all stimulus conditions on both days. Performance improved by an equivalent amount for all groups across days. Response bias differed consistently across stimulus conditions and days but not across groups. The difference in thresholds between the radiologists and control groups suggests that experience in diagnostic medical imaging produces perceptual skills that that transfer beyond the trained domain.

SUBMITTER: Hussain Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7568295 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An expert advantage in detecting unfamiliar visual signals in noise.

Hussain Zahra Z

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20200930 41

Diagnostic radiologists are experts in discriminating and classifying medical images for clinically significant anomalies. Does their perceptual expertise confer an advantage in unfamiliar visual tasks? Here, this issue was investigated by comparing the performance of 10 radiologists and 2 groups of novices on the ability to detect novel visual signals: band-limited textures in noise. Observers performed a yes/no detection task in which texture spatial frequency and external noise levels were va ...[more]

PMID: 32999072

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo conduct a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of visual field fast (VFF), a free iPad-based noise-field perimeter, in detecting glaucomatous scotomas versus the clinical-standard Humphrey visual field (HVF) test. VFF confronts subjects with a screen of flickering stimulus, allowing the immediate perception of scotomas.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional observational study of 66 glaucoma patients (66 eyes) and 30 healthy controls (30 eyes). All patients had no other visual field disorders. VFF was compared against HVF in terms of whole field and quadrants for the following: (1) correspondence in scotoma detection. (2) Agreement and correlation of the scotoma size (percentage of abnormal visual field area). (3) Test duration. Other domains tested included: (1) correlation of VFF scotoma area with the severity of visual field loss on HVF (mean deviation, MD; visual field index, VFI). (2) Repeatability of VFF. (3) Patient descriptors of scotomas.ResultsUsing HVF pattern deviation plot as a reference, VFF detected 52/57 (91.2%) of glaucoma subjects with 1 false-positive (control) (kappa = 0.86). 146/184 (79.3%) of abnormal quadrants (visual field defect present) were localized and 23/157 (14.6%) healthy quadrants were falsely identified as abnormal (kappa = 0.61). VFF underestimated scotoma area as compared to HVF (21.0% versus 44.0%, p < 0.01) but correlated positively (r = 0.268, p = 0.044) with HVF area and negatively with VFI (r = -0.340, p = 0.01) and MD (r = -0.398, p < 0.01). Using HVF total deviation plot as reference, VFF's glaucoma detection rate remained unchanged (kappa = 0.86) with similar quadrant detection (kappa = 0.68). However, a greater underestimation of scotoma area was observed (21.0% versus 85.4%, p < 0.01). VFF's quantitative repeatability was excellent for whole field (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC: 0.96; p < 0.0001) and quadrants (ICC: 0.82-0.96; all p < 0.001). Qualitatively, 35/37 (94.6%) of subjects reported reduced luminance and flicker in scotomas, with similar morphologies on retests. VFF is faster than HVF SITA-Standard in glaucoma (3.60 ± 1.85 min versus 6.92 ± 1.12 min, p < 0.01) and control (1.12 ± 0.486 min versus 5.16 ± 0.727 min, p < 0.01).ConclusionThis early model of VFF accurately detected scotomas with high repeatability. However, its accuracy in localizing and quantifying the scotoma can be improved. Considering its portability and cost-effectiveness, VFF demonstrated potential as a general screening tool for moderate-to-severe glaucoma.

Dataset Information

An expert advantage in detecting unfamiliar visual signals in noise.

Publications

An expert advantage in detecting unfamiliar visual signals in noise.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets