ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2017
Comparison of gesture and conventional interaction techniques for interventional neuroradiology.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of Commercial Off-The-Shelf Devices for the Detection of Manual Gestures in Surgery: Systematic Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Using Gesture and Speech to Control Surgical Lighting Systems: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Review of Three-Dimensional Human-Computer Interaction with Focus on the Leap Motion Controller.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInteraction with radiological image data and volume renderings within a sterile environment is a challenging task. Clinically established methods such as joystick control and task delegation can be time-consuming and error-prone and interrupt the workflow. New touchless input modalities may have the potential to overcome these limitations, but their value compared to established methods is unclear.
methodsWe present a comparative evaluation to analyze the value of two gesture input modalities (Myo Gesture Control Armband and Leap Motion Controller) versus two clinically established methods (task delegation and joystick control). A user study was conducted with ten experienced radiologists by simulating a diagnostic neuroradiological vascular treatment with two frequently used interaction tasks in an experimental operating room. The input modalities were assessed using task completion time, perceived task difficulty, and subjective workload.
resultsOverall, the clinically established method of task delegation performed best under the study conditions. In general, gesture control failed to exceed the clinical input approach. However, the Myo Gesture Control Armband showed a potential for simple image selection task.
conclusionNovel input modalities have the potential to take over single tasks more efficiently than clinically established methods. The results of our user study show the relevance of task characteristics such as task complexity on performance with specific input modalities. Accordingly, future work should consider task characteristics to provide a useful gesture interface for a specific use case instead of an all-in-one solution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28120179What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.