ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Relating the perceived useful field of view to visual search in 2D Images and 3D volumetric images.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
3D volumetric images are prevalent in industries ranging from radiology and oncology to airport luggage screenings. With 3D medical images, however, radiologists are visually overburdened by the vast amount of image data requiring inspection. Radiologists and trained (nonradiologist) observers often underexplore 3D images with eye movements-producing misses of small targets undetectable in the visual periphery. We investigate why observers underexplore 3D images by quantifying their perceived exploration of the search area and relating it to the extent of their search on trials where they report "target absent." Six trained observers participated in two eye-tracking experiments to evaluate whether the area covered by the Useful Field of View (UFOV) influences the underexploration of the 3D images. Experiment 1 estimated empirical and perceived target-specific UFOVs per observer. We tested the observer's detectability of a small and large target embedded in 1/f noise as a function of retinal eccentricity (empirical UFOV). Observers also estimated how well they could see the two targets in their visual periphery (perceived UFOV). Experiment 2 had observers participate in a 2D and a 3D search for the two targets. The area covered with the perceived but not empirical UFOVs was similar across targets in the 2D and 3D searches. Moreover, while performing the 3D search, observers covered the 2D projection plane (i.e., collapsing all slices that comprise the 3D volumetric image into one image plane) with their perceived UFOVs to the same extent as in the 2D search task, leaving much of the 3D volume unexplored.
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.