Human–Computer Interaction in Radiotherapy Target Volume Delineation: A Prospective, Multi-institutional Comparison of User Input Devices
Identifieur interne : 001743 ( Ncbi/Merge ); précédent : 001742; suivant : 001744Human–Computer Interaction in Radiotherapy Target Volume Delineation: A Prospective, Multi-institutional Comparison of User Input Devices
Auteurs :Source :
- Journal of Digital Imaging [ 0897-1889 ] ; 2010.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was the prospective comparison of objective and subjective effects of target volume region of interest (ROI) delineation using mouse–keyboard and pen–tablet user input devices (UIDs). The study was designed as a prospective test/retest sequence, with Wilcoxon signed rank test for matched-pair comparison. Twenty-one physician-observers contoured target volume ROIs on four standardized cases (representative of brain, prostate, lung, and head and neck malignancies) twice: once using QWERTY keyboard/scroll-wheel mouse UID and once with pen–tablet UID (DTX2100, Wacom Technology Corporation, Vancouver, WA, USA). Active task time, ROI manipulation task data, and subjective survey data were collected. One hundred twenty-nine target volume ROI sets were collected, with 62 paired pen–tablet/mouse–keyboard sessions. Active contouring time was reduced using the pen–tablet UID, with mean ± SD active contouring time of 26 ± 23 min, compared with 32 ± 25 with the mouse (
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10278-010-9341-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Url:
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-010-9341-2
PubMed: 20978922
PubMed Central: 3180541
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Pmc, to step Corpus: 000716
- to stream Pmc, to step Curation: 000716
- to stream Pmc, to step Checkpoint: 001E70
Links to Exploration step
PMC:3180541Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Human–Computer Interaction in Radiotherapy Target Volume Delineation: A Prospective, Multi-institutional Comparison of User Input Devices</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno>
<idno type="pmid">20978922</idno>
<idno type="pmc">3180541</idno>
<idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180541</idno>
<idno type="RBID">PMC:3180541</idno>
<idno type="doi">10.1007/s10278-010-9341-2</idno>
<date when="2010">2010</date>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">000716</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Curation">000716</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Checkpoint">001E70</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Ncbi/Merge">001743</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">Human–Computer Interaction in Radiotherapy Target Volume Delineation: A Prospective, Multi-institutional Comparison of User Input Devices</title>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j">Journal of Digital Imaging</title>
<idno type="ISSN">0897-1889</idno>
<idno type="eISSN">1618-727X</idno>
<imprint><date when="2010">2010</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass></textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><p>The purpose of this study was the prospective comparison of objective and subjective effects of target volume region of interest (ROI) delineation using mouse–keyboard and pen–tablet user input devices (UIDs). The study was designed as a prospective test/retest sequence, with Wilcoxon signed rank test for matched-pair comparison. Twenty-one physician-observers contoured target volume ROIs on four standardized cases (representative of brain, prostate, lung, and head and neck malignancies) twice: once using QWERTY keyboard/scroll-wheel mouse UID and once with pen–tablet UID (DTX2100, Wacom Technology Corporation, Vancouver, WA, USA). Active task time, ROI manipulation task data, and subjective survey data were collected. One hundred twenty-nine target volume ROI sets were collected, with 62 paired pen–tablet/mouse–keyboard sessions. Active contouring time was reduced using the pen–tablet UID, with mean ± SD active contouring time of 26 ± 23 min, compared with 32 ± 25 with the mouse (<italic>p</italic>
≤ 0.01). Subjective estimation of time spent was also reduced from 31 ± 26 with mouse to 27 ± 22 min with the pen (<italic>p</italic>
= 0.02). Task analysis showed ROI correction task reduction (<italic>p</italic>
= 0.045) and decreased panning and scrolling tasks (<italic>p</italic>
< 0.01) with the pen–tablet; drawing, window/level changes, and zoom commands were unchanged (<italic>p</italic>
= n.s.) Volumetric analysis demonstrated no detectable differences in ROI volume nor intra- or inter-observer volumetric coverage. Fifty-two of 62 (84%) users preferred the tablet for each contouring task; 5 of 62 (8%) denoted no preference, and 5 of 62 (8%) chose the mouse interface. The pen–tablet UID reduced active contouring time and reduced correction of ROIs, without substantially altering ROI volume/coverage.</p>
<sec><title>Electronic supplementary material</title>
<p>The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10278-010-9341-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.</p>
</sec>
</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-comment>The publisher of this article does not allow downloading of the full text in XML form.</pmc-comment>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">J Digit Imaging</journal-id>
<journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Digital Imaging</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0897-1889</issn>
<issn pub-type="epub">1618-727X</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Springer-Verlag</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">20978922</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="pmc">3180541</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">9341</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10278-010-9341-2</article-id>
<article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Article</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group><article-title>Human–Computer Interaction in Radiotherapy Target Volume Delineation: A Prospective, Multi-institutional Comparison of User Input Devices</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><collab>Multi-Institutional Target Delineation in Oncology Group</collab>
<address><phone>+1-210-4501127</phone>
<fax>+1-210-4505085</fax>
<email>fullercd@uthscsa.edu</email>
</address>
</contrib>
<aff id="Aff1">Department of Radiation Oncology, and Graduate Program in Radiological Sciences/Department of Radiology, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr, Mail Stop Code 7889, San Antonio, TX 78229 USA</aff>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>27</day>
<month>10</month>
<year>2010</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>10</month>
<year>2011</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>24</volume>
<issue>5</issue>
<fpage>794</fpage>
<lpage>803</lpage>
<permissions><copyright-statement>© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2010</copyright-statement>
</permissions>
<abstract id="Abs1"><p>The purpose of this study was the prospective comparison of objective and subjective effects of target volume region of interest (ROI) delineation using mouse–keyboard and pen–tablet user input devices (UIDs). The study was designed as a prospective test/retest sequence, with Wilcoxon signed rank test for matched-pair comparison. Twenty-one physician-observers contoured target volume ROIs on four standardized cases (representative of brain, prostate, lung, and head and neck malignancies) twice: once using QWERTY keyboard/scroll-wheel mouse UID and once with pen–tablet UID (DTX2100, Wacom Technology Corporation, Vancouver, WA, USA). Active task time, ROI manipulation task data, and subjective survey data were collected. One hundred twenty-nine target volume ROI sets were collected, with 62 paired pen–tablet/mouse–keyboard sessions. Active contouring time was reduced using the pen–tablet UID, with mean ± SD active contouring time of 26 ± 23 min, compared with 32 ± 25 with the mouse (<italic>p</italic>
≤ 0.01). Subjective estimation of time spent was also reduced from 31 ± 26 with mouse to 27 ± 22 min with the pen (<italic>p</italic>
= 0.02). Task analysis showed ROI correction task reduction (<italic>p</italic>
= 0.045) and decreased panning and scrolling tasks (<italic>p</italic>
< 0.01) with the pen–tablet; drawing, window/level changes, and zoom commands were unchanged (<italic>p</italic>
= n.s.) Volumetric analysis demonstrated no detectable differences in ROI volume nor intra- or inter-observer volumetric coverage. Fifty-two of 62 (84%) users preferred the tablet for each contouring task; 5 of 62 (8%) denoted no preference, and 5 of 62 (8%) chose the mouse interface. The pen–tablet UID reduced active contouring time and reduced correction of ROIs, without substantially altering ROI volume/coverage.</p>
<sec><title>Electronic supplementary material</title>
<p>The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10278-010-9341-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>
<kwd-group><title>Keywords</title>
<kwd>User interface</kwd>
<kwd>User–computer interface</kwd>
<kwd>Workflow</kwd>
<kwd>Workflow reengineering</kwd>
<kwd>Radiation oncology</kwd>
<kwd>Radiotherapy</kwd>
<kwd>Observer variation</kwd>
<kwd>Observer performance</kwd>
<kwd>Imaging informatics</kwd>
<kwd>Human–computer interaction</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>issue-copyright-statement</meta-name>
<meta-value>© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2011</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
</pmc>
<affiliations><list></list>
<tree></tree>
</affiliations>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/HapticV1/Data/Ncbi/Merge
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001743 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd -nk 001743 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Ticri/CIDE |area= HapticV1 |flux= Ncbi |étape= Merge |type= RBID |clé= PMC:3180541 |texte= Human–Computer Interaction in Radiotherapy Target Volume Delineation: A Prospective, Multi-institutional Comparison of User Input Devices }}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:20978922" \ | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd \ | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a HapticV1
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.23. | ![]() |