| Title |
Use-inspired basic research in medical image perception
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41235-016-0019-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeremy M. Wolfe |
| Abstract |
This journal is dedicated to "use-inspired basic research" where a problem in the world shapes the hypotheses for a study in the laboratory. This brief review presents several examples of "use-inspired basic research" in the area of medical image perception. These are cases where the field of radiology raises an interesting issue in visual cognition. Basic research on those issues may then lead to proposals to improve performance on clinical tasks in medical image perception. Of the six examples given here, the first three ask essentially perceptual questions: How can stereopsis improve medical image perception? How shall we assess the tradeoff between radiation dose and image quality? How does the choice of colors change the interpretation of medical images? The second three examples address attentional issues in those aspects of radiology that can be described as visual search problems: Can eye tracking help us understand errors in radiologic search? What happens if the number of targets in an image is unknown? What happens if, as in radiology screening programs, the target of search is very rare? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 30% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Professor | 6 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 41% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,440,271
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#198
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,891
of 308,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.