Humans can extract considerable information from scenes, even when these are presented extremely quickly. The ability of an experienced radiologist to rapidly detect an abnormality on a mammogram may build upon this general capacity. Although radiologists have been shown to be able to detect an abnormality ‘above chance’ at short durations, the extent to which abnormalities can be localised at brief presentations is less clear. Extending previous work, we presented radiologists with unilateral mammograms, 50% containing a mass, for 250 or 1000 ms. As the female breast varies with respect to the level of normal fibroglandular tissue, the images were categorised into high and low density (50% of each), resulting in difficult and easy searches, respectively. Participants were asked to decide whether there was an abnormality (detection) and then to locate the mass on a blank outline of the mammogram (localisation). We found both detection and localisation information for all conditions. Although there may be a dissociation between detection and localisation on a small proportion of trials, we find a number of factors that lead to the underestimation of localisation including stimulus variability, response imprecision and participant guesses. We emphasise the importance of taking these factors into account when interpreting results. The effect of density on detection and localisation highlights the importance of considering breast density in medical screening.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s41235-018-0096-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Radiologists make critical decisions based on searching and interpreting medical images. The probability of a lung nodule differs across anatomical regions within the chest, raising the possibility that radiologists might have a prior expectation that creates an attentional bias. The development of expertise is also thought to cause “tuning” to relevant features, allowing radiologists to become faster and more accurate at detecting potential masses within their domain of expertise. Here, we tested both radiologists and control participants with a novel attentional-cueing paradigm to investigate whether the deployment of attention was affected (1) by a context that might invoke prior knowledge for experts, (2) by a nodule localized either on the same or on opposite sides as a subsequent target, and (3) by inversion of the nodule-present chest radiographs, to assess the orientation specificity of any effects. The participants also performed a nodule detection task to verify that our presentation duration was sufficient to extract diagnostic information. We saw no evidence of priors triggered by a normal chest radiograph cue affecting attention. When the cue was an upright abnormal chest radiograph, radiologists were faster when the lateralised nodule and the subsequent target appeared at the same rather than at opposite locations, suggesting attention was captured by the nodule. The opposite pattern was present for inverted images. We saw no evidence of cueing for control participants in any condition, which suggests that radiologists are indeed more sensitive to visual features that are not perceived as salient by naïve observers. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.3758/s13414-019-01695-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective This research was designed to examine the contribution of self-reported experience and cue utilization to diagnostic accuracy in the context of radiology. Background Within radiology, it is unclear how task-related experience contributes to the acquisition of associations between features with events in memory, or cues, and how they contribute to diagnostic performance. Method Data were collected from 18 trainees and 41 radiologists. The participants completed a radiology edition of the established cue utilization assessment tool EXPERTise 2.0, which provides a measure of cue utilization based on performance on a number of domain-specific tasks. The participants also completed a separate image interpretation task as an independent measure of diagnostic performance. Results Consistent with previous research, a k-means cluster analysis using the data from EXPERTise 2.0 delineated two groups, the pattern of centroids of which reflected higher and lower cue utilization. Controlling for years of experience, participants with higher cue utilization were more accurate on the image interpretation task compared to participants who demonstrated relatively lower cue utilization ( p = .01). Conclusion This study provides support for the role of cue utilization in assessments of radiology images among qualified radiologists. Importantly, it also demonstrates that cue utilization and self-reported years of experience as a radiologist make independent contributions to performance on the radiological diagnostic task. Application Task-related experience, including training, needs to be structured to ensure that learners have the opportunity to acquire feature–event relationships and internalize these associations in the form of cues in memory.

Retrospectively obvious events are frequently missed when attention is engaged in another task-a phenomenon known as inattentional blindness. Although the task characteristics that predict inattentional blindness rates are relatively well understood, the observer characteristics that predict inattentional blindness rates are largely unknown. Previously, expert radiologists showed a surprising rate of inattentional blindness to a gorilla photoshopped into a CT scan during lung-cancer screening. However, inattentional blindness rates were higher for a group of naïve observers performing the same task, suggesting that perceptual expertise may provide protection against inattentional blindness. Here, we tested whether expertise in radiology predicts inattentional blindness rates for unexpected abnormalities that were clinically relevant. Fifty radiologists evaluated CT scans for lung cancer. The final case contained a large (9.1 cm) breast mass and lymphadenopathy. When their attention was focused on searching for lung nodules, 66% of radiologists did not detect breast cancer and 30% did not detect lymphadenopathy. In contrast, only 3% and 10% of radiologists (N = 30), respectively, missed these abnormalities in a follow-up study when searching for a broader range of abnormalities. Neither experience, primary task performance, nor search behavior predicted which radiologists missed the unexpected abnormalities. These findings suggest perceptual expertise does not protect against inattentional blindness, even for unexpected stimuli that are within the domain of expertise.