Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2015 | Original Article

The effect of expert knowledge on medical search: medical experts have specialized abilities for detecting serious lesions

Auteurs: Ryoichi Nakashima, Chisaki Watanabe, Eriko Maeda, Takeharu Yoshikawa, Izuru Matsuda, Soichiro Miki, Kazuhiko Yokosawa

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

How does domain-specific knowledge influence the experts’ performance in their domain of expertise? Specifically, can visual search experts find, with uniform efficiency, any type of target in their domain of expertise? We examined whether acquired knowledge of target importance influences an expert’s visual search performance. In some professional searches (e.g., medical screenings), certain targets are rare; one aim of this study was to examine the extent to which experts miss such targets in their searches. In one experiment, radiologists (medical experts) engaged in a medical lesion search task in which both the importance (i.e., seriousness/gravity) and the prevalence of targets varied. Results showed decreased target detection rates in the low prevalence conditions (i.e., the prevalence effect). Also, experts were better at detecting important (versus unimportant) lesions. Results of an experiment using novices ruled out the possibility that decreased performance with unimportant targets was due to low target noticeability/visibility. Overall, the findings suggest that radiologists do not have a generalized ability to detect any type of lesion; instead, they have acquired a specialized ability to detect only those important lesions relevant for effective medical practices.
vorige artikel The relationship of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity to cognitive processing in adolescents: findings from the ALSPAC birth cohort
volgende artikel A new paper and pencil task reveals adult false belief reasoning bias
Voetnoten
1
To calculate d′ and C, we used the numerical correction values of detection rate and correct rejection rate when they were 1. A general correction method assumes that 1 − 1/2N (N is the number of target-present/-absent trials) (see Macmillan & Creelman, 1991). In this study, there was a large difference in the number of target-absent trials between the two prevalence conditions (18 vs. 882 trials). To equalize the correction values, when detection rate and correct rejection rate in each condition were higher than 0.97 (i.e., 1 − 1/36), we regarded them as 0.97 in all conditions.
 
Literatuur
Allard, F., Graham, S., & Paarsalu, M. E. (1980). Perception in sport: basketball. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 14–21.
Asano, M., Kanaya, S., & Yokosawa, K. (2008). Proofreaders show a generalized ability to allocate spatial attention to detect changes. Psychologia, 51, 126–141.CrossRef
Bédard, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Expertise. Current Direction Psychological Science, 1, 135–139.CrossRef
Berbaum, K. S., Franklin, E. A. J., Caldwell, R. T., & Schartz, K. M. (2010). Satisfaction of search in traditional radiographic imaging. In E. Samei & E. Krupinski (Eds.), The handbook of medical image perception and techniques (pp. 107–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowditch, R. (1996). Patterns found in false negative cervical cytology. Cytoletter, 3, 22–25.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 443–446.CrossRef
Brawley, O. W., & Kramer, B. S. (2005). Cancer screening in theory and practice. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 293–300.CrossRefPubMed
Carmody, D. P., Nodine, C. F., & Kundel, H. L. (1981). Finding lung nodules with and without comparative visual scanning. Perception and Psychophysics, 29, 594–598.CrossRefPubMed
Chase, W. G., & Ericsson, K. A. (1982). Skill and working memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 16, 1–58.CrossRef
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.CrossRef
Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic Press.
DeMay, R. M. (1997). Common problems in Papanicolaou smear interpretation. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 121, 229–238.PubMed
Evans, K. K., Birdwell, R. L., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013a). If you don’t find it often, you often don’t find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64366.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Evans, K. K., Cohen, M. A., Tambouret, R., Horowitz, T., Kreindel, E., & Wolfe, J. M. (2011a). Does visual expertise improve visual recognition memory? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 30–35.CrossRef
Evans, K. K., Evered, A., Tambouret, R. H., Wilbur, D. C., & Wolfe, J. M. (2011b). Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists’ error rates in screening for cervical cancer. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 135, 1557–1560.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Evans, K. K., Georgian-Smith, D., Tambouret, R., Birdwell, R. L., & Wolfe, J. M. (2013b). The gist of the abnormal: above-chance medical decision making in the blink of an eye. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1170–1175.CrossRef
Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943–947.CrossRefPubMed
Fleck, M. S., Samei, E., & Mitroff, S. R. (2010). Generalized “satisfaction of search”: adverse influences on dual-target search accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 60–71.PubMed
Hickey, C., Chelazzi, L., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). Reward changes salience in human vision via the anterior cingulate. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 11096–11103.CrossRefPubMed
Hickey, C., Chelazzi, L., & Theeuwes, J. (2011). Reward has a residual impact on target selection in visual search, but not on the suppression of distractors. Visual Cognition, 19, 117–128.CrossRef
Hommel, B., Li, Z. H., & Li, S. C. (2004). Visual search across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 40, 545–558.CrossRefPubMed
Humphreys, D. G., & Kramer, A. F. (1997). Age differences in visual search for feature, conjunction, and triple-conjunction targets. Psychology and Aging, 12, 704–717.CrossRef
Ishibashi, K., Kita, S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2012). The effects of local prevalence and explicit expectations on search termination times. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 115–123.CrossRef
Krupinski, E. A. (2010). Current perspectives in medical image perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1205–1217.CrossRef
Kundel, H. L. (2006). History of research in medical image perception. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 3, 402–408.CrossRefPubMed
Kundel, H. L., Nodine, C. F., & Carmody, D. P. (1978). Visual scanning, pattern recognition, and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. Investigative Radiology, 13, 175–181.CrossRefPubMed
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maeda, E., Yoshikawa, T., Nakashima, R., Kobayashi, K., Yokosawa, K., Hayashi, N., et al. (2013). Experimental system for measurement of radiologists’ performance by visual search task. Springer Plus, 2(607), 1–6.
Menneer, T., Barrett, D. J. K., Phillips, L., Donnelly, N., & Cave, K. R. (2004). Search efficiency for multiple targets. Cognitive Technology, 9, 22–25.
Menneer, T., Barrett, D. J. K., Phillips, L., Donnelly, N., & Cave, K. R. (2007). Costs in searching for two targets: dividing search across target types could improve airport security screening. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 915–932.CrossRef
Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2009). The cost of search for multiple targets: the effect of practice and target similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 125–139.PubMed
Nakashima, R., Kobayashi, K., Maeda, E., Yoshikawa, T., & Yokosawa, K. (2013). Visual search of experts in medical image reading: the effect of training, target prevalence, and expert knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(166), 1–8.
Neider, M. B., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2006). Searching for camouflaged targets: effects of target-background similarity on visual search. Vision Research, 46, 2217–2235.CrossRefPubMed
Nieuwenhuis, S., Forstmann, B. U., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1105–1107.CrossRefPubMed
Oestmann, J. W., Greene, R., Kushner, D. C., Bourgouin, P. M., Linetsky, L., & Llewellyn, H. J. (1988). Lung lesions: correlation between viewing time and detection. Radiology, 166, 451–453.CrossRefPubMed
Palmer, J., Huk, A. C., & Shadlen, M. N. (2005). The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. Journal of Vision, 5, 376–404.CrossRefPubMed
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.CrossRefPubMed
Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., Van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8(15), 1–17.CrossRefPubMed
Sowden, P. T., Davies, I. R. L., & Roling, P. (2000). Perceptual learning of the detection of features in X-ray images: a functional role for improvements in adults’ visual sensitivity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 379–390.PubMed
Trick, L. M., & Enns, J. T. (1998). Lifespan changes in attention: the visual search task. Cognitive Development, 13, 369–386.CrossRef
Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 541–553.
Voss, J. F., Vesonder, G. T., & Spilich, G. J. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 651–667.CrossRef
Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50, 433–441.CrossRefPubMed
Wolfe, J. M., Brunelli, D. N., Rubinstein, J., & Horowitz, T. S. (2013). Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: trained observers miss rare targets, too. Journal of Vision, 13(3), 1–9.CrossRef
Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 623–638.CrossRef
Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121–124.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Yantis, S., Anderson, B. A., Wampler, E. K., & Laurent, P. A. (2012). Reward and attentional control in visual search. In M. D. Dodd & J. H. Flowers (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: The influence of attention, learning, and motivation on visual search (pp. 91–116). New York: Springer.CrossRef
Zenger, B., & Fahle, M. (1997). Missed targets are more frequent than false alarms: a model for error rates in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1783–1791.PubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
The effect of expert knowledge on medical search: medical experts have specialized abilities for detecting serious lesions
Auteurs
Ryoichi Nakashima
Chisaki Watanabe
Eriko Maeda
Takeharu Yoshikawa
Izuru Matsuda
Soichiro Miki
Kazuhiko Yokosawa
Publicatiedatum
01-09-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0616-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2015

Priming effects on the perceived grouping of ambiguous dot patterns

  • Original Article

Emergent perception–action couplings regulate postural adjustments during performance of externally-timed dynamic interceptive actions

  • Original Article

Empirical validation of the diffusion model for recognition memory and a comparison of parameter-estimation methods

  • Open Access
  • Original Article

Semantic similarity between old and new items produces false alarms in recognition memory

  • Original Article

A new paper and pencil task reveals adult false belief reasoning bias

  • Original Article

The effects of emotional stimuli on visuo-spatial vigilance

  • Original Article