Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Diagnosis

Official Journal of the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine (SIDM)

Editor-in-Chief: Graber, Mark L. / Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Argy, Nicolas / Epner, Paul L. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Singhal, Geeta / McDonald, Kathryn / Singh, Hardeep / Newman-Toker, David

Editorial Board: Basso , Daniela / Crock, Carmel / Croskerry, Pat / Dhaliwal, Gurpreet / Ely, John / Giannitsis, Evangelos / Katus, Hugo A. / Laposata, Michael / Lyratzopoulos, Yoryos / Maude, Jason / Sittig, Dean F. / Sonntag, Oswald / Zwaan, Laura


CiteScore 2018: 0.69

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.359
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.424

Online
ISSN
2194-802X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Phenomenological analysis of diagnostic radiology: description and relevance to diagnostic errors

Mindaugas Briedis / Ruta Briediene
Published Online: 2019-12-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2019-0073

Abstract

This paper uses novel qualitative research methods (phenomenology, ethnography and enactivism) to understand the cognitive processes through which radiologists interpret medical images to arrive at a diagnosis. From this perspective, diagnosis is not simply a matching of findings to retrieved mental images, but more properly an act of embodied or situated cognition, one that involves perception along with the actualization of professional memory and imagination and an expert-level understanding of the involved technology. Image interpretation involves a diverse set of factors, each of which is critical to arriving at the correct diagnostic interpretations, and conversely, may be the source of mis-interpretations and diagnostic error. Interpretation depends on the radiologist’s understanding of the imaging modality that was used, a deep appreciation of anatomy and comprehensive knowledge of relevant diseases and how they manifest in medical imaging. A range of personal and inter-personal factors may also come into play, including understanding the actions, values and goals of the patient, the imaging technicians and the clinicians and other medical professionals involved in the patient’s care. This multi-dimensional perspective provides novel insights regarding the cognitive aspects of diagnostic radiology and a novel framework for understanding how diagnostic errors arise in this process. Some of the findings of this research may have applications for diagnostic praxis in general, that is, beyond radiology diagnostics.

Keywords: diagnostic errors; image-based diagnosis; phenomenological ethnography; radiology; situated cognition

References

  • 1.

    Nodine CF, Kundel HL. Using eye movements to study visual search and to improve tumor detection. Radiographics 1987;7:1241–50.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Cooper L, Gale A, Darker I, Toms A, Saada J. Radiology image perception and observer performance: how does expertise and clinical information alter interpretation? Stroke detection explored through eye-tracking. Proc SPIE 2009;7263.Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Oestmann JW. Lung lesions: correlation between viewing time and detection. Radiology 1988;166:451–3.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Drew T, Vo ML, Wolfe JM. The invisible gorilla strikes again: sustained inattentional blindness in expert observers. Psychol Sci 2013;24:1848–53.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Katz J, Csordas TJ. Phenomenological ethnography in sociology and anthropology. Ethnography 2003;4:275–88.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Estatella A, Criado TS. Experimental collaborations: ethnography through fieldwork devices. Oxford: Berghahn, 2018.Google Scholar

  • 7.

    Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Psychology Press, 1950.Google Scholar

  • 8.

    Robbins P, Aydede M, editors. The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar

  • 9.

    Durning SJ, Artino AR, Schuwirth L, Vleuten C. Clarifying assumptions to enhance our understanding and assessment of clinical reasoning. Acad Med 2013;88:442–8.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Suchman LA. Human–machine reconfigurations: plans and situated actions, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

  • 11.

    Hutchins E. Cognitive ecology. Top Cogn Sci 2010;2:705–15.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Hutchins E. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, UK: MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar

  • 13.

    Jacobs H. I am awake: Husserlian reflections on wakefulness and attention. Alter Rev Phénoménol 2010;18:183–201.Google Scholar

  • 14.

    Shutz A. The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1967.Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Husserl E. Analyses concerning passive and active synthesis: lectures on transcendental logic. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001.Google Scholar

  • 16.

    Di Paolo EA, Rohde M, De Jaegher H. Horizons for the enactive mind: values, social interaction, and play. In: Stewart J, Gapenne O, Di Paolo EA, editors. Enaction: towards a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010.Google Scholar

  • 17.

    Kulvicki JV. Images. London: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar

  • 18.

    Husserl E. Collected works: phantasy, image consciousness, and memory (1898–1925). Berlin: Springer, 2005.Google Scholar

  • 19.

    Froese T, Gallagher S. Phenomenology and artificial life: toward a technological supplementation of phenomenological methodology. Husserl Stud 2010;26:83–106.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Nanay B. Four theories of amodal perception. Proc Annu Meet Cogn Sci Soc 2007;29:1331–6.Google Scholar

  • 21.

    Treisman A. Features and objects in visual processing. Sci. Am. 1986;255:114–25.Google Scholar

  • 22.

    Corr P. Pattern recognition in diagnostic imaging. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.Google Scholar

  • 23.

    Michotte A. The perception of causality. London: Methuen, 1963.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2019-10-12

Accepted: 2019-11-05

Published Online: 2019-12-12


Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.


Citation Information: Diagnosis, 20190073, ISSN (Online) 2194-802X, ISSN (Print) 2194-8011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2019-0073.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in