ArticleScientific reports2020
Computational modeling of human reasoning processes for interpretable visual knowledge: a case study with radiographers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. 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.
- Higher Purity of Phosphatidylserine Improves Human Cortical Neuron Function by Modulating SIRT1-PGC-1α Pathways.Brain sciences · 2026Article
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
Visual reasoning is critical in many complex visual tasks in medicine such as radiology or pathology. It is challenging to explicitly explain reasoning processes due to the dynamic nature of real-time human cognition. A deeper understanding of such reasoning processes is necessary for improving diagnostic accuracy and computational tools. Most computational analysis methods for visual attention utilize black-box algorithms which lack explainability and are therefore limited in understanding the visual reasoning processes. In this paper, we propose a computational method to quantify and dissect visual reasoning. The method characterizes spatial and temporal features and identifies common and contrast visual reasoning patterns to extract significant gaze activities. The visual reasoning patterns are explainable and can be compared among different groups to discover strategy differences. Experiments with radiographers of varied levels of expertise on 10 levels of visual tasks were conducted. Our empirical observations show that the method can capture the temporal and spatial features of human visual attention and distinguish expertise level. The extracted patterns are further examined and interpreted to showcase key differences between expertise levels in the visual reasoning processes. By revealing task-related reasoning processes, this method demonstrates potential for explaining human visual understanding.
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.