ArticleRevista espanola de patologia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Anatomia Patologica y de la Sociedad Espanola de Citologia
Head-tracking as an interface device for image control in digital pathology: a comparative study.
Article in Revista espanola de patologia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Anatomia Patologica y de la Sociedad Espanola de Citologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A comparative usability assessment of computer input devices for navigating digital whole slide images.Journal of pathology informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInasmuch as the conventional mouse is not an ideal input device for digital pathology, the aim of this study was to evaluate alternative systems with the goal of identifying a natural user interface (NUI) for controlling whole slide images (WSI).
designFour pathologists evaluated three webcam-based, head-tracking mouse emulators: Enable Viacam (eViacam, CREA Software), Nouse (JLG Health Solutions Inc), and Camera Mouse (CM Solutions Inc). Twenty WSI dermatopathological cases were randomly selected and examined with Image Viewer (Ventana, AZ, USA). The NASA-TLX was used to rate the perceived workload of using these systems and time was recorded. In addition, a satisfaction survey was used.
resultsThe mean total time needed for diagnosis with Camera Mouse, eViacam, and Nouse was 18'57", 19'37" and 22'32", respectively (57/59/68seconds per case, respectively). The NASA-TLX workload score, where lower scores are better, was 42.1 for eViacam, 53.3 for Nouse and 60.62 for Camera Mouse. This correlated with the pathologists' degree of satisfaction on a scale of 1-5: 3.4 for eViacam, 3 for Nouse, and 2 for Camera Mouse (p<0.05).
conclusionsHead-tracking systems enable pathologists to control the computer cursor and virtual slides without their hands using only a webcam as an input device. - Of the three software solutions examined, eViacam seems to be the best of those evaluated in this study, followed by Nouse and, finally, Camera Mouse. - Further studies integrating other systems should be performed in conjunction with software developments to identify the ideal device for digital pathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.