Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSaalfeld, P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLuz, M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBerg, P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPreim, B.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSaalfeld, S.en_US
dc.contributor.editorChen, Min and Benes, Bedrichen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-05T12:48:40Z
dc.date.available2018-04-05T12:48:40Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn1467-8659
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13262
dc.identifier.urihttps://diglib.eg.org:443/handle/10.1111/cgf13262
dc.description.abstractMedical visualizations are highly adapted to a specific medical application scenario. Therefore, many researchers conduct qualitative evaluations with a low number of physicians or medical experts to assess the benefits of their visualization technique. Although this type of research has advantages, it is difficult to reproduce and can be subjectively biased. This makes it problematic to quantify the benefits of a new visualization technique. Quantitative evaluation can objectify research and help bringing new visualization techniques into clinical practice. To support researchers, we present guidelines to quantitatively evaluate medical visualizations, considering specific characteristics and difficulties. We demonstrate the adaptation of these guidelines on the example of comparative aneurysm surface visualizations. We developed three visualization techniques to compare aneurysm volumes. The visualization techniques depict two similar, but not identical aneurysm surface meshes. In a user study with 34 participants and five aneurysm data sets, we assessed objective measures (accuracy and required time) and subjective ratings (suitability and likeability). The provided guidelines and presentation of different stages of the evaluation allow for an easy adaptation to other application areas of medical visualization.Medical visualizations are highly adapted to a specific medical application scenario. Therefore, many researchers conduct qualitative evaluations with a low number of physicians or medical experts to assess the benefits of their visualization technique. Although this type of research has advantages, it is difficult to reproduce and can be subjectively biased. This makes it problematic to quantify the benefits of a new visualization technique. Quantitative evaluation can objectify research and help bringing new visualization techniques into clinical practice.en_US
dc.publisher© 2018 The Eurographics Association and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.en_US
dc.subjectevaluation
dc.subjectmedical visualization
dc.subjectaneurysm surface comparison
dc.subjectI.3.3 [Computer Graphics]: Picture/ImageGeneration and Display Algorithms
dc.subjectG.3 Probability and Statistics Experimental Design J.2 Physical Sciences and Engineering Mathematics and Statistics
dc.titleGuidelines for Quantitative Evaluation of Medical Visualizations on the Example of 3D Aneurysm Surface Comparisonsen_US
dc.description.seriesinformationComputer Graphics Forum
dc.description.sectionheadersArticles
dc.description.volume37
dc.description.number1
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cgf.13262
dc.identifier.pages226-238


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record