Evaluating automatic warning cues for visual search in vascular images

ABSTRACT

Visual search is a task that is performed in various application areas. Search can be aided by an automatic warning system, which highlights the sections that may contain targets and require the user's attention. The effect of imperfect automatic warnings on overall performance ultimately depends on the interplay between the user and the automatic warning system. While various user studies exist, the different studies differ in several experimental variables including the nature of the visualisation itself. Studies in the medical area remain relatively rare, even though there is a growing interest in medical screening systems. We describe an experiment where users had to perform a visual search on a vascular structure, traversing a particular vessel linearly in search of possible errors made in an automatic segmentation. We find that only the case in which the warning system generates only false positives improves user time and error performance. We discuss this finding in relation to the findings of other studies.

References

1. S. R. Dixon, C. D. Wickens, and J. S. McCarley. On the independence of compliance and reliance: are automation false alarms worse than misses? Human factors, 49(4):564--72, 2007.
2. N. Ezer, A. D. Fisk, and W. A. Rogers. Age-related differences in reliance behavior attributable to costs within a human-decision aid system export. Human Factors, 50(6):853--863, 2008.
3. D. L. Fisher and K. C. Tan. Visual displays: The highlighting paradox. Human Factors, 31(1):17--30, 1989.
4. M. S. Fleck and S. R. Mitroff. Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18(11):943--947, 2007.
5. T. W. Freer and J. M. Ulissey. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology, 220:781--786, 2001.
6. W. Hong, F. Qiu, and A. Kaufman. A pipeline for computer aided polyp detection. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(5):861--868, 2006.
7. K. Levinski, A. Sourin, and V. Zagorodnov. 3D visualization and segmentation of brain MRI data. In GRAPP 2009, pages 111--118, 2009.
8. J. H. Levy, R. R. Broadhurst, S. Ray, E. L. Chaney, and S. M. Pizer. Signaling local non-credibility in an automatic segmentation pipeline. In Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering meetings on Medical Imaging, Volume 6512, 2007.
9. F. J. López-Aligué, I. Acevedo-Sotoca, A. García-Manso, C. J. García-Orellana, and R. Gallardo-Caballero.Microcalcifications detection in digital mammograms. In EMBC 2004, vol.3, 2004.
10. M. Maltz and D. Shinar. New alternative methods of analyzing human behavior in cued target acquisition. Human Factors, 45(2):281--295, 2003.
11. S. Rice. Examining single and multiple-process theories of trust in automation. Journal of General Psychology, 136(3):303--319, 2009.
12. F. P. Tamborello and M. D. Byrne. Adaptive but non-optimal visual search behavior with highlighted displays. Cognitive Systems Research, 8(3):182--191, 2007. Cognitive Modeling.
13. C. D. Wickens and A. D. Andre. Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space, and objectness on information integration. Human Factors, 32(1):61--77, 1990.
14. M. Yeh and C. D. Wickens. Display signaling in augmented reality: Effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Human Factors, 43(3):355--365, 2001.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • Interaction paradigms

      • Graphical user interfaces