Serial dependence in the perceptual judgments of radiologists
Open Access
- 14 October 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
- Vol. 6 (1), 1-13
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00331-z
Abstract
In radiological screening, clinicians scan myriads of radiographs with the intent of recognizing and differentiating lesions. Even though they are trained experts, radiologists’ human search engines are not perfect: average daily error rates are estimated around 3–5%. A main underlying assumption in radiological screening is that visual search on a current radiograph occurs independently of previously seen radiographs. However, recent studies have shown that human perception is biased by previously seen stimuli; the bias in our visual system to misperceive current stimuli towards previous stimuli is called serial dependence. Here, we tested whether serial dependence impacts radiologists’ recognition of simulated lesions embedded in actual radiographs. We found that serial dependence affected radiologists’ recognition of simulated lesions; perception on an average trial was pulled 13% toward the 1-back stimulus. Simulated lesions were perceived as biased towards the those seen in the previous 1 or 2 radiographs. Similar results were found when testing lesion recognition in a group of untrained observers. Taken together, these results suggest that perceptual judgements of radiologists are affected by previous visual experience, and thus some of the diagnostic errors exhibited by radiologists may be caused by serial dependence from previously seen radiographs.Keywords
Funding Information
- National Institutes of Health (R01 CA236793)
This publication has 74 references indexed in Scilit:
- Adaptation Aftereffects in the Perception of Radiological ImagesPLOS ONE, 2013
- Cognitive and System Factors Contributing to Diagnostic Errors in RadiologyAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2013
- If You Don’t Find It Often, You Often Don’t Find It: Why Some Cancers Are Missed in Breast Cancer ScreeningPLOS ONE, 2013
- The challenge of measuring long-term positive aftereffectsCurrent Biology, 2013
- Facilitating Stable Representations: Serial Dependence in VisionPLOS ONE, 2011
- Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effectJournal of Vision, 2008
- Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPyFrontiers in Neuroscience, 2008
- PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in PythonJournal of Neuroscience Methods, 2007
- Accuracy of Diagnostic Procedures: Has It Improved Over the Past Five Decades?American Journal of Roentgenology, 2007
- Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2007