TY - JOUR
T1 - Radiologist experience effects on contrast detection
AU - Leong, David L.
AU - Rainford, Louise
AU - Haygood, Tamara Miner
AU - Whitman, Gary J.
AU - Geiser, William R.
AU - Stephens, Tanya W.
AU - Davis, Paul L.
AU - Brennan, Patrick C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 Optical Society of America.
PY - 2014/11/1
Y1 - 2014/11/1
N2 - Current literature shows that radiologist experience does not affect detection tasks when the object does not require medical training to detect. However, the research was never sufficiently detailed to examine if the contrast detection threshold is also the same for radiologists versus nonradiologists. Previously, contrast threshold research was performed predominantly on nonradiologists. Therefore, any differences could lead to over- or under-estimation of the performance capabilities of radiologists. Fourteen readers, evenly divided between radiologists and nonradiologists, read a set of 150 mammogram-like images. The study was performed with the location of the objects known and unknown, requiring two separate readings. No difference in the contrast detection threshold between reader groups for either the location-unknown (4.9 just noticeable differences) or location-known (3.3 just noticeable differences) images was seen. The standard deviation for the location-unknown condition had no difference (p 0.91). But for the location-known condition, a significant difference (p 0.0009) was seen between radiologists and nonradiologists. No difference in contrast detection based on reader experience was observed, but decreased variance was seen with radiologists in the location-known condition.
AB - Current literature shows that radiologist experience does not affect detection tasks when the object does not require medical training to detect. However, the research was never sufficiently detailed to examine if the contrast detection threshold is also the same for radiologists versus nonradiologists. Previously, contrast threshold research was performed predominantly on nonradiologists. Therefore, any differences could lead to over- or under-estimation of the performance capabilities of radiologists. Fourteen readers, evenly divided between radiologists and nonradiologists, read a set of 150 mammogram-like images. The study was performed with the location of the objects known and unknown, requiring two separate readings. No difference in the contrast detection threshold between reader groups for either the location-unknown (4.9 just noticeable differences) or location-known (3.3 just noticeable differences) images was seen. The standard deviation for the location-unknown condition had no difference (p 0.91). But for the location-known condition, a significant difference (p 0.0009) was seen between radiologists and nonradiologists. No difference in contrast detection based on reader experience was observed, but decreased variance was seen with radiologists in the location-known condition.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942364264&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942364264&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1364/JOSAA.31.002328
DO - 10.1364/JOSAA.31.002328
M3 - Article
C2 - 25401342
AN - SCOPUS:84942364264
SN - 1084-7529
VL - 31
SP - 2328
EP - 2333
JO - Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision
JF - Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision
IS - 11
ER -