Stylus/tablet user input device for MRI heart wall segmentation: efficiency and ease of use
To determine whether use of a stylus user input device (UID) would be superior to a mouse for CMR segmentation.
Twenty-five consecutive clinical cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) examinations were selected. Image analysis was independently performed by four observers. Manual tracing of left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular endocardial contours was performed twice in 10 randomly assigned sessions, each session using only one UID. Segmentation time and the ventricular function variables were recorded. The mean segmentation time and time reduction were calculated for each method. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots of function variables were used to assess intra- and interobserver variability and agreement between methods. Observers completed a Likert-type questionnaire.
The mean segmentation time (in seconds) was significantly less with the stylus compared to the mouse, averaging 206±108 versus 308±125 (p<0.001) and 225±140 versus 353±162 (p<0.001) for LV and RV segmentation, respectively. The intra- and interobserver agreement rates were excellent (ICC≥0.75) regardless of the UID. There was an excellent agreement between measurements derived from manual segmentation using different UIDs (ICC≥0.75), with few exceptions. Observers preferred the stylus.
The study shows a significant reduction in segmentation time using the stylus, a subjective preference, and excellent agreement between the methods.
• Using a stylus for MRI ventricular segmentation is faster compared to mouse
• A stylus is easier to use and results in less fatigue
• There is excellent agreement between stylus and mouse UIDs
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Radiology Heart Cardiac imaging techniques Image processing, computer-assisted
Analysis of variance
Cardiac magnetic resonance
Coefficient of variation
Intra-class correlation coefficient
Limits of agreement
Steady-state free precession
User input device
The work has been submitted for consideration as a scientific presentation to the RSNA 2017 annual meeting.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Leon Axel.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• Retrospective performed at one institution
- 14.Larsson S, Stapleton S, Larsson L (2007) A comparison of speed and accuracy of contouring using mouse versus graphics tablet. Clinl Oncol 19:S36Google Scholar
- 19.Paris C, Colineau N, Farrell V, Farrell G, Huang W (2011) Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. In 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. Available via https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2071536. Accessed 22 Feb 2018
- 20.Annett M, Anderson F, Bischof WF, Gupta A (2014) The pen is mightier: understanding stylus behaviour while inking on tablets. In: Proceedings of graphics interface. Canadian Information Processing Society, Chicago, pp 193–200Google Scholar