| Title |
Comparison of optical see-through head-mounted displays for surgical interventions with object-anchored 2D-display
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11548-017-1564-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Long Qian, Alexander Barthel, Alex Johnson, Greg Osgood, Peter Kazanzides, Nassir Navab, Bernhard Fuerst |
| Abstract |
Optical see-through head-mounted displays (OST-HMD) feature an unhindered and instantaneous view of the surgery site and can enable a mixed reality experience for surgeons during procedures. In this paper, we present a systematic approach to identify the criteria for evaluation of OST-HMD technologies for specific clinical scenarios, which benefit from using an object-anchored 2D-display visualizing medical information. Criteria for evaluating the performance of OST-HMDs for visualization of medical information and its usage are identified and proposed. These include text readability, contrast perception, task load, frame rate, and system lag. We choose to compare three commercially available OST-HMDs, which are representatives of currently available head-mounted display technologies. A multi-user study and an offline experiment are conducted to evaluate their performance. Statistical analysis demonstrates that Microsoft HoloLens performs best among the three tested OST-HMDs, in terms of contrast perception, task load, and frame rate, while ODG R-7 offers similar text readability. The integration of indoor localization and fiducial tracking on the HoloLens provides significantly less system lag in a relatively motionless scenario. With ever more OST-HMDs appearing on the market, the proposed criteria could be used in the evaluation of their suitability for mixed reality surgical intervention. Currently, Microsoft HoloLens may be more suitable than ODG R-7 and Epson Moverio BT-200 for clinical usability in terms of the evaluated criteria. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that presents a methodology and conducts experiments to evaluate and compare OST-HMDs for their use as object-anchored 2D-display during interventions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 163 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 17% |
| Researcher | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 21% |
| Unknown | 37 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 40 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 19% |
| Engineering | 28 | 17% |
| Design | 3 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 7% |
| Unknown | 48 | 29% |
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 22 August 2023.
All research outputs
#6,518,756
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
#173
of 861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,214
of 309,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 861 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 309,446 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.