Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38555550›Full record

ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2024

The effects of gaze-display feedback on medical students' self-monitoring and learning in radiology.

Ellen M Kok, Diederick C Niehorster, Anouk van der Gijp, Dirk R Rutgers, William F Auffermann, Marieke van der Schaaf, Liesbeth Kester, Tamara van Gog

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ellen M KokDepartment of Education, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands. e.m.kok@uu.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9752-2531
Diederick C NiehorsterLund University Humanities Lab, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4672-8756
Anouk van der GijpDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dirk R RutgersDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0889-1448
William F AuffermannSchool of Medicine, University of Utah, Utah, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0015-4897
Marieke van der SchaafUtrecht Center for Research and Development in Health Professions Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6555-5320
Liesbeth KesterDepartment of Education, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0482-0391
Tamara van GogDepartment of Education, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3766-6255
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUtrecht University · NLLund University · SEUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

NRO PROO 05-17-301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-monitoring is essential for effectively regulating learning, but difficult in visual diagnostic tasks such as radiograph interpretation. Eye-tracking technology can visualize viewing behavior in gaze displays, thereby providing information about visual search and decision-making. We hypothesized that individually adaptive gaze-display feedback improves posttest performance and self-monitoring of medical students who learn to detect nodules in radiographs. We investigated the effects of: (1) Search displays, showing which part of the image was searched by the participant; and (2) Decision displays, showing which parts of the image received prolonged attention in 78 medical students. After a pretest and instruction, participants practiced identifying nodules in 16 cases under search-display, decision-display, or no feedback conditions (n = 26 per condition). A 10-case posttest, without feedback, was administered to assess learning outcomes. After each case, participants provided self-monitoring and confidence judgments. Afterward, participants reported on self-efficacy, perceived competence, feedback use, and perceived usefulness of the feedback. Bayesian analyses showed no benefits of gaze displays for post-test performance, monitoring accuracy (absolute difference between participants' estimated and their actual test performance), completeness of viewing behavior, self-efficacy, and perceived competence. Participants receiving search-displays reported greater feedback utilization than participants receiving decision-displays, and also found the feedback more useful when the gaze data displayed was precise and accurate. As the completeness of search was not related to posttest performance, search displays might not have been sufficiently informative to improve self-monitoring. Information from decision displays was rarely used to inform self-monitoring. Further research should address if and when gaze displays can support learning.

Indexed as

Eye-Tracking TechnologyRadiologyStudents, MedicalAdultClinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFeedbackFemaleFixation, OcularFormative FeedbackHumansLearningMaleSelf EfficacyYoung AdultEye trackingFeedbackGaze displayMedical image perceptionRadiograph interpretationSelf-monitoring

Identifiers

PMID38555550
PMCPMC11549167
OpenAlexW4393353964

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.