TY - JOUR
T1 - Human-computer interaction in radiotherapy target volume delineation
T2 - A prospective, multi-institutional comparison of user input devices
AU - Rasch, Coen R.N.
AU - Duppen, Joop C.
AU - Steenbakkers, Roel J.
AU - Baseman, Daniel
AU - Eng, Tony Y.
AU - Fuller, Clifton D.
AU - Harris, Anna M.
AU - Jones, William E.
AU - Li, Ying
AU - Maani, Elizabeth
AU - Nguyen, Dominic D.
AU - Swanson, Gregory P.
AU - Bicquart, Celine
AU - Gagnon, Patrick
AU - Holland, John
AU - McDonald, Tasha
AU - Thomas, Charles R.
AU - Wang, Samuel
AU - Fuss, Martin
AU - Sharp, Hadley J.
AU - Ludwig, Michelle
AU - Rosenthal, David I.
AU - Diaz, Aidnag Z.
AU - Demandante, Carlo G.N.
AU - Shapiro, Ronald
N1 - Funding Information:
The corresponding author received research funding through a Resident Research Grant from the Radiological Society of North America Education and Research Foundation (RR0732) and from the National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering [5T32EB000817-04] and National Cancer Institute Clinical Research Loan Repayment Program [L30 CA136381]). Pen–tablet devices were provided as a loan-in-kind for the duration of the study by Wacom, Inc. (Vancouver, WA). These funders had no role in study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, nor in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
PY - 2011/10
Y1 - 2011/10
N2 - 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 matchedpair 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 (p=0.01). Subjective estimation of time spent was also reduced from 31±26 with mouse to 27±22 min with the pen (p=0.02). Task analysis showed ROI correction task reduction (p=0.045) and decreased panning and scrolling tasks (p<0.01) with the pen-tablet; drawing, window/ level changes, and zoom commands were unchanged (p= 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.
AB - 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 matchedpair 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 (p=0.01). Subjective estimation of time spent was also reduced from 31±26 with mouse to 27±22 min with the pen (p=0.02). Task analysis showed ROI correction task reduction (p=0.045) and decreased panning and scrolling tasks (p<0.01) with the pen-tablet; drawing, window/ level changes, and zoom commands were unchanged (p= 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.
KW - Human-computer interaction
KW - Imaging informatics
KW - Observer performance
KW - Observer variation
KW - Radiation oncology
KW - Radiotherapy
KW - User interface
KW - User-computer interface
KW - Workflow
KW - Workflow reengineering
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855593879&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855593879&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10278-010-9341-2
DO - 10.1007/s10278-010-9341-2
M3 - Review article
C2 - 20978922
AN - SCOPUS:84855593879
VL - 24
SP - 794
EP - 803
JO - Journal of Digital Imaging
JF - Journal of Digital Imaging
SN - 0897-1889
IS - 5
ER -