Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25720760›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2015

Adaptation and visual search in mammographic images.

Elysse Kompaniez-Dunigan, Craig K Abbey, John M Boone, Michael A Webster

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Controllable Medical Image Generation via GAN.Journal of perceptual imaging · 2022
    Article
  9. Serial dependence in the perceptual judgments of radiologists.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Visual adaptation and the amplitude spectra of radiological images.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2018
    Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elysse Kompaniez-DuniganDepartment of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, 89557, USA, ekompaniez@unr.edu.
Craig K Abbey
John M Boone
Michael A Webster
University of Nevada, Reno · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of California, Santa Barbara · US

Funding

Breast CT scanner for earlier cancer detectionR01EB002138 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI BOONE, JOHN M · 2003 to 2012
$9.0M
SALIENCE, ADAPTATION, AND NATURAL IMAGE STATISTICSR01EY010834 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO · PI WEBSTER, MICHAEL A · 2000 to 2023
$4.6M
COLOR CONTRAST ADAPTATIONR29EY010834 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENO · PI WEBSTER, MICHAEL A · 1995 to 1999
–
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY010834NEI NIH HHS R01 EY-10834NEI NIH HHS R29 EY010834NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB-002138NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB002138
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiologists face the visually challenging task of detecting suspicious features within the complex and noisy backgrounds characteristic of medical images. We used a search task to examine whether the salience of target features in x-ray mammograms could be enhanced by prior adaptation to the spatial structure of the images. The observers were not radiologists, and thus had no diagnostic training with the images. The stimuli were randomly selected sections from normal mammograms previously classified with BIRADS Density scores of "fatty" versus "dense," corresponding to differences in the relative quantities of fat versus fibroglandular tissue. These categories reflect conspicuous differences in visual texture, with dense tissue being more likely to obscure lesion detection. The targets were simulated masses corresponding to bright Gaussian spots, superimposed by adding the luminance to the background. A single target was randomly added to each image, with contrast varied over five levels so that they varied from difficult to easy to detect. Reaction times were measured for detecting the target location, before or after adapting to a gray field or to random sequences of a different set of dense or fatty images. Observers were faster at detecting the targets in either dense or fatty images after adapting to the specific background type (dense or fatty) that they were searching within. Thus, the adaptation led to a facilitation of search performance that was selective for the background texture. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that adaptation allows observers to more effectively suppress the specific structure of the background, thereby heightening visual salience and search efficiency.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAdultContrast SensitivityHumansMammographyReaction TimeRecognition, PsychologyVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID25720760
PMCPMC4417074
OpenAlexW2094192155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.