Evaluating user interfaces for stack mode viewing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this research was to evaluate two different stack mode layouts for 3D medical images - a regular stack mode layout where just the topmost image was visible, and a new stack mode layout, which included the images just before and after the main image. We developed stripped down user interfaces to test the techniques, and designed a look-alike radiology task using 3D artificial target stimuli implanted in the slices of medical image volumes. The task required searching for targets and identifying the range of slices containing the targets. Eight naive students participated, using a within-subjects design. We measured the response time and accuracy of subjects using the two layouts and tracked the eyegaze of several subjects while they performed the task. Eyegaze data was divided into fixations and saccades Subjects were 19% slower with the new stack layout than the standard stack layout, but 5 of the 8 subjects preferred the new layout. Analysis of the eyegaze data showed that in the new technique, the context images on both sides were fixated once the target was found in the topmost image. We believe that the extra time was caused by the difficulty in controlling the rate of scrolling, causing overshooting. We surmise that providing some contextual detail such as adjacent slices in the new stack mode layout is helpful to reduce cognitive load for this radiology look-alike task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".