Diagnoses of medical images can invite strikingly diverse strategies for image navigation and visual search. In computed tomography screening for lung nodules, distinct strategies, termed scanning and drilling, relate to both radiologists’ clinical experience and accuracy in lesion detection. Here, we examined associations between search patterns and accuracy for pathologists ( N = 92) interpreting a diverse set of breast biopsy images. While changes in depth in volumetric images reveal new structures through movement in the z-plane, in digital pathology changes in depth are associated with increased magnification. Thus, “drilling” in radiology may be more appropriately termed “zooming” in pathology. We monitored eye-movements and navigation through digital pathology slides to derive metrics of how quickly the pathologists moved through XY (scanning) and Z (zooming) space. Prior research on eye-movements in depth has categorized clinicians as either “scanners” or “drillers.” In contrast, we found that there was no reliable association between a clinician's tendency to scan or zoom while examining digital pathology slides. Thus, in the current work we treated scanning and zooming as continuous predictors rather than categorizing as either a “scanner” or “zoomer.” In contrast to prior work in volumetric chest images, we found significant associations between accuracy and scanning rate but not zooming rate. These findings suggest fundamental differences in the relative value of information types and review behaviors across two image formats. Our data suggest that pathologists gather critical information by scanning on a given plane of depth, whereas radiologists drill through depth to interrogate critical features.

Prior research has shown that interruptions lead to a variety of performance costs. However, these costs are heterogenous and poorly understood. Under some circumstances, interruptions lead to large decreases in accuracy on the primary task, whereas in others task duration increases, but task accuracy is unaffected. Presently, the underlying cause of these costs is unclear. The Memory for Goals model suggests that interruptions interfere with the ability to represent the current goal of the primary task. Here, we test the idea that working memory (WM) may play a critical role in representing the current goal and thus may underlie the observed costs associated with interruption. In two experiments, we utilized laboratory-based visual search tasks, which differed in their WM demands, in order to assess how this difference influenced the observed interruption costs. Interruptions led to more severe performance costs when the target of the search changed on each trial. When the search target was consistent across trials, the cost of interruption was greatly reduced. This suggests that the WM demands associated with the primary task play an important role in determining the performance costs of interruption. Our findings suggest that it is important for research to consider the cognitive processes a task engages in order to predict the nature of the adverse effects of interruption in applied settings such as radiology.

Studies in the psychology of visual expertise have tended to focus on a limited set of expert domains, such as radiology and athletics. Conclusions drawn from these data indicate that experts use parafoveal vision to process images holistically. In this study, we examined a novel, as-of-yet-unstudied class of visual experts-architects-expecting similar results. However, the results indicate that architects, though visual experts, may not employ the holistic processing strategy observed in their previously studied counterparts. Participants (n = 48, 24 architects, 24 naïve) were asked to find targets in chest radiographs and perspective images. All images were presented in both gaze-contingent and normal viewing conditions. Consistent with a holistic processing model, we expected two results: (1) architects would display a greater difference in saccadic amplitude between the gazecontingent and normal conditions, and (2) architects would spend less time per search than an undergraduate control group. We found that the architects were more accurate in the perspectival task, but they took more time and displayed a lower difference in saccadic amplitude than the controls. Our research indicates a disjunctive conclusion. Either architects are simply different kinds of visual experts than those previously studied, or we have generated a task that employs visual expertise without holistic processing. Our data suggest a healthy skepticism for across-the-board inferences collected from a single domain of expertise to the nature of visual expertise generally. More work is needed to determine whether holism is a feature of all visual expertise.

No abstract

No abstract