The Evolution of Computed Tomography (CT) and Its User Interface: A Contextual and Comparative Analysis of Some of the Most Used Solutions

  • Oronzo ParlangeliEmail author
  • Alessandra Giani
  • Federico Baccetti
  • Ilaria Bonanno
  • Ylenia Iervolino
  • Marino Todisco
  • Renzo Ricci
  • Stefano Guidi
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)


The study presented in this paper was aimed at analyzing the user interfaces of Computed Tomography (CT) scanners and comparing three different systems used in two hospitals in Tuscany, Italy. Heuristic evaluations were conducted to measure the level of usability of these systems. The results show that the three systems have similar, but not equal, usability, that they rely heavily on operators’ competences, and are not designed and implemented to facilitate the execution of complex tasks .


Computed Tomography CT Healthcare technology Graphical user interface Heuristic evaluation HMI Design thinking 



The authors would like to thank all the staff of the two hospitals were the study took place, for the kindness shown and for welcoming and guiding us in this research.


  1. 1.
    Abujarad F, Breslin M, Guo G, Hess EP, Lopez K, Melnick E, Pavlo A, Powsner S, Post LA (2017) Patient-centered decision support: formative usability evaluation of integrated clinical decision support with a patient decision aid for minor head injury in the emergency department. J Med Internet Res 19(5):e174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bagnara S, Parlangeli O, Tartaglia R (2010) Are hospitals becoming high reliability or-ganizations? Appl Ergon 41(5):713–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bastien JMC, Scapin DL (1993) Ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human computer interfaces, INRIA, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bogner MS (2017) Error as a behavior and Murphy’s law: implications for human factors and ergonomics. In: Carayon P (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safetyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carney JPJ, Hall NC, Townsend DW, Yap JT (2004) PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med 45(1 suppl):4S–14SGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fan J, Melnyk R, Yue M (2014) Benefits of ASiR-V* reconstruction for reducing patient radiation dose and preserving diagnostic quality in CT exams.
  8. 8.
    Guidi S, Mengoni G, Parlangeli O (2011) The effect of system usability and multitasking activities in distance learning. In: Proceedings of the CHItaly conference 2011, 13–16 September, Alghero, ACM Library, pp 59–64Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hassenzahl M (2013) The encyclopedia of human–computer interaction, 2nd edn. Interaction Design Foundation, Aarhus, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hell E, Knüpfer W, Mattern D (2000) The evolution of scintillating medical detectors, nuclear instruments and methods in physics research section A: accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollingsed T, Novick DG (2007) Usability inspection methods after 15 years of research and practice. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on design of communication 2007, El Paso, TXGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Society for Computed Tomograpy’s site, half a century in CT: how computed tomography has evolved. Accessed 28 Apr 2018
  13. 13.
    Kohl G (2005) The evolution and state-of-the-art principles of multislice computed tomography. In: Proceedings of the American Thoracic SocietyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Linblom J, Susi T, Ziemke T (2003) Beyond the bounds of cognition. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the cognitive science society 2003, Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mack RL, Nielsen J (1994) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norman D (2017) Design of everyday things, 2nd edn. Time Warner, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norman D (2010) Living with complexity, 1st edn. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norman DA, Verganti R (2014) Incremental and radical innovation: design research vs. technology and meaning change. Des Issues 1(30):78–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olsen DR Jr (2007) Evaluating user interface systems research. In: UIST ‘07 proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technologyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shital A (2009) Graphical user interface (GUI) to study different reconstruction algorithms in computed tomography, Wright State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shneiderman B, Plaisant C (2010) Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human–computer interaction. Addison Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siemens AG/Divisione Healthcare, Gherardelli A (2009) La tecnologia dual-source si fa largo nella tomografia, Milano.
  23. 23.
    Singh S et al (2010) Abdominal CT: comparison of adaptive statistical iterative and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Radiology 257(2):373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vicente KJ, Rasmussen J (1990) The ecology of human-machine systems II: mediating “direct perception” in complex work domains. Ecol Psychol 2:207–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oronzo Parlangeli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alessandra Giani
    • 2
  • Federico Baccetti
    • 1
  • Ilaria Bonanno
    • 1
  • Ylenia Iervolino
    • 1
  • Marino Todisco
    • 1
  • Renzo Ricci
    • 3
  • Stefano Guidi
    • 4
  1. 1.Università degli Studi di SienaSienaItaly
  2. 2.Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria SeneseSienaItaly
  3. 3.Azienda USL Centro toscanaFlorenceItaly
  4. 4.Centro Gestione Rischio Clinico e Sicurezza del PazienteFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations