4 ms·
A better study would be to place an unlikely but detection worthy artifact into the image. Say, you’re looking for a broken bone and you put a rare disease in a
by vrc 3y ago
A better study would be to place an unlikely but detection worthy artifact into the image. Say, you’re looking for a broken bone and you put a rare disease in an unrelated part of the body but visible in the radiograph. Bet the clinicians spot it. Because in the real world, this is how things get caught. But I’d love to know the missed detection rate.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThis has been studied in various ways. Lots of perception effects documented. For example: https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-021-00318-w https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/1... > For over 50 years, the satisfaction of search effect has been studied within the field of radiology. Defined as a decrease in detection rates for a subsequent target when an initial target is found within the image, these multiple target errors are known to underlie errors of omission (e.g., a radiologist is more likely to miss an abnormality if another abnormality is identified). More recently, they have also been found to underlie lab-based search errors in cognitive science experiments (e.g., an observer is more likely to miss a target ‘T’ if a different target ‘T’ was detected). This phenomenon was renamed the subsequent search miss (SSM) effect in cognitive science.