Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31582963›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of biomedical imaging2019

A Semi-Automated Usability Evaluation Framework for Interactive Image Segmentation Systems.

Mario Amrehn, Stefan Steidl, Reinier Kortekaas, Maddalena Strumia, Markus Weingarten, Markus Kowarschik, Andreas Maier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of biomedical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Mario AmrehnThe Pattern Recognition Lab, Computer Science Department, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3697-1779
Stefan SteidlThe Pattern Recognition Lab, Computer Science Department, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany.
Reinier KortekaasSiemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany.
Maddalena StrumiaSiemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany.
Markus WeingartenSiemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany.
Markus KowarschikSiemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany.
Andreas MaierThe Pattern Recognition Lab, Computer Science Department, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9550-5284

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For complex segmentation tasks, the achievable accuracy of fully automated systems is inherently limited. Specifically, when a precise segmentation result is desired for a small amount of given data sets, semi-automatic methods exhibit a clear benefit for the user. The optimization of human computer interaction (HCI) is an essential part of interactive image segmentation. Nevertheless, publications introducing novel interactive segmentation systems (ISS) often lack an objective comparison of HCI aspects. It is demonstrated that even when the underlying segmentation algorithm is the same throughout interactive prototypes, their user experience may vary substantially. As a result, users prefer simple interfaces as well as a considerable degree of freedom to control each iterative step of the segmentation. In this article, an objective method for the comparison of ISS is proposed, based on extensive user studies. A summative qualitative content analysis is conducted via abstraction of visual and verbal feedback given by the participants. A direct assessment of the segmentation system is executed by the users via the system usability scale (SUS) and AttrakDiff-2 questionnaires. Furthermore, an approximation of the findings regarding usability aspects in those studies is introduced, conducted solely from the system-measurable user actions during their usage of interactive segmentation prototypes. The prediction of all questionnaire results has an average relative error of 8.9%, which is close to the expected precision of the questionnaire results themselves. This automated evaluation scheme may significantly reduce the resources necessary to investigate each variation of a prototype's user interface (UI) features and segmentation methodologies.

Identifiers

PMID31582963
PMCPMC6748179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.