Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27081663›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2016

Review of prospects and challenges of eye tracking in volumetric imaging.

Antje C Venjakob, Claudia R Mello-Thoms

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Visual search in breast imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Volumetric image interpretation in radiology: scroll behavior and cognitive processes.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors.

Antje C VenjakobTechnische Universität Berlin , Chair of Human-Machine Systems, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics, Marchstraße 23, 10587 Berlin, Germany.
Claudia R Mello-ThomsUniversity of Sydney, Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health Science, 94 Mallet Street, Level 2, Room 204, Sydney, NSW 2150, Australia; University of Pittsburgh, Department of Biomedical Informatics, 5607 Baum Boulevard, Room 423, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206-3701, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While eye tracking research in conventional radiography has flourished over the past decades, the number of eye tracking studies that looked at multislice images lags behind. A possible reason for the lack of studies in this area might be that the eye tracking methodology used in the context of conventional radiography cannot be applied one-on-one to volumetric imaging material. Challenges associated with eye tracking in volumetric imaging are particularly associated with the selection of stimulus material, the detection of events in the eye tracking data, the calculation of meaningful eye tracking parameters, and the reporting of abnormalities. However, all of these challenges can be addressed in the design of the experiment. If this is done, eye tracking studies using volumetric imaging material offer almost unlimited opportunity for perception research and are highly relevant as the number of volumetric images that are acquired and interpreted is rising.

Indexed as

eye trackingimage interpretationvisual searchvolumetric imaging

Identifiers

PMID27081663
PMCPMC4814545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.