What do experts look at and what do experts find when reading mammograms?

Purpose: Radiologists sometimes fail to report clearly visible, clinically significant findings. Eye tracking can provide insight into the causes of such errors. Approach: We tracked eye movements of 17 radiologists, searching for masses in 80 mammograms (60 with masses). Results: Errors were classified using the Kundel et al. (1978) taxonomy: search errors (target never fixated), recognition errors (fixated $$ ), or decision errors (fixated $$ ). Error proportions replicated Krupinski (1996): search 25%, recognition 25%, and decision 50%. Interestingly, we found few differences between experts and residents in accuracy or eye movement metrics. Error categorization depends on the definition of the useful field of view (UFOV) around fixation. We explored different UFOV definitions, based on targeting saccades and search saccades. Targeting saccades averaged slightly longer than search saccades. Of most interest, we found that the probability that the eyes would move to the target on the next saccade or even on one of the next three saccades was strikingly low ( $$ , even when the eyes were $$ from the target). This makes it clear that observers do not fully process everything within a UFOV. Using a probabilistic UFOV, we find, unsurprisingly, that observers cover more of the image when no target is present than when it is found. Interestingly, we do not find evidence that observers cover too little of the image on trials when they miss the target. Conclusions: These results indicate that many errors in mammography reflect failed deployment of attention; not failure to fixate clinically significant locations.