Visual Attention of Anesthesia Providers in Simulated Anesthesia Emergencies Using Conventional Number-Based and Avatar-Based Patient Monitoring: Prospective Eye-Tracking Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inadequate situational awareness accounts for two-thirds of preventable complications in anesthesia. An essential tool for situational awareness in the perioperative setting is the patient monitor. However, the conventional monitor has several weaknesses. Avatar-based patient monitoring may address these shortcomings and promote situation awareness, a prerequisite for good decision making. OBJECTIVE: The spatial distribution of visual attention is a fundamental process for achieving adequate situation awareness and thus a potential quantifiable surrogate for situation awareness. Moreover, measuring visual attention with a head-mounted eye-tracker may provide insights into usage and acceptance of the new avatar-based patient monitoring modality. METHODS: This prospective eye-tracking study compared anesthesia providers' visual attention on conventional and avatar-based patient monitors during simulated critical anesthesia events. We defined visual attention, measured as fixation count and dwell time, as our primary outcome. We correlated visual attention with the potential confounders: performance in managing simulated critical anesthesia events (task performance), work experience, and profession. We used mixed linear models to analyze the results. RESULTS: Fifty-two teams performed 156 simulations. After a manual quality check of the eye-tracking footage, we excluded 57 simulations due to technical problems and quality issues. Participants had a median of 198 (IQR 92.5-317.5) fixations on the patient monitor with a median dwell time of 30.2 (IQR 14.9-51.3) seconds. We found no significant difference in participants' visual attention when using avatar-based patient monitoring or conventional patient monitoring. However, we found that with each percentage point of better task performance, the number of fixations decreased by about 1.39 (coefficient -1.39; 95% CI -2.44 to -0.34; P=.02), and the dwell time diminished by 0.23 seconds (coefficient -0.23; 95% CI: -0.4 to -0.06; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Using eye tracking, we found no significant difference in visual attention when anesthesia providers used avatar-based monitoring or conventional patient monitoring in simulated critical anesthesia events. However, we identified visual attention in conjunction with task performance as a surrogate for situational awareness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".