| Title |
Feasibility of eye-tracking technology to quantify expertise in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Anesthesia, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00540-016-2157-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. Kyle Harrison, T. Edward Kim, Alex Kou, Cynthia Shum, Edward R. Mariano, Steven K. Howard, The ADAPT (Anesthesiology-Directed Advanced Procedural Training) Research Group |
| Abstract |
Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) requires an advanced procedural skill set that incorporates both sonographic knowledge of relevant anatomy as well as technical proficiency in needle manipulation in order to achieve a successful outcome. Understanding how to differentiate a novice from an expert in UGRA using a quantifiable tool may be useful for comparing educational interventions that could improve the rate at which one develops expertise. Exploring the gaze pattern of individuals performing a task has been used to evaluate expertise in many different disciplines, including medicine. However, the use of eye-tracking technology has not been previously applied to UGRA. The purpose of this preliminary study is to establish the feasibility of applying such technology as a measurement tool for comparing procedural expertise in UGRA. eye-tracking data were collected from one expert and one novice utilizing Tobii Glasses 2 while performing a simulated ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral block in a gel phantom model. Area of interest fixations were recorded and heat maps of gaze fixations were created. Results suggest a potential application of eye-tracking technology in the assessment of UGRA learning and performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 | 7 | 37% |
| Canada | 2 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Ukraine | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 26% |
| Scientists | 4 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 34% |
| Engineering | 8 | 11% |
| Decision Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 23 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 27 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,049,377
of 25,137,221 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#34
of 933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,146
of 305,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,137,221 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 933 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 305,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.