↓ Skip to main content

The gist of the abnormal: Above-chance medical decision making in the blink of an eye

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The gist of the abnormal: Above-chance medical decision making in the blink of an eye
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2013
DOI 10.3758/s13423-013-0459-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karla K. Evans, Diane Georgian-Smith, Rosemary Tambouret, Robyn L. Birdwell, Jeremy M. Wolfe

Abstract

Very fast extraction of global structural and statistical regularities allows us to access the "gist"--the basic meaning--of real-world images in as little as 20 ms. Gist processing is central to efficient assessment and orienting in complex environments. This ability is probably based on our extensive experience with the regularities of the natural world. If that is so, would experts develop an ability to extract the gist from the artificial stimuli (e.g., medical images) with which they have extensive visual experience? Anecdotally, experts report some ability to categorize images as normal or abnormal before actually finding an abnormality. We tested the reality of this perception in two expert populations: radiologists and cytologists. Observers viewed brief (250- to 2,000-ms) presentations of medical images. The presence of abnormality was randomized across trials. The task was to rate the abnormality of an image on a 0-100 analog scale and then to attempt to localize that abnormality on a subsequent screen showing only the outline of the image. Both groups of experts had above-chance performance for detecting subtle abnormalities at all stimulus durations (cytologists d' ≈ 1.2 and radiologists d' ≈ 1), whereas the nonexpert control groups did not differ from chance (d' ≈ 0.23, d' ≈ 0.25). Furthermore, the experts' ability to localize these abnormalities was at chance levels, suggesting that categorization was based on a global signal, and not on fortuitous attention to a localized target. It is possible that this global signal could be exploited to improve clinical performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 105 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 23%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 9%
Computer Science 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 21 19%