3.
Results
Fig.4 shows gaze time and gaze ratios in each range with and without CAN 4.
Fig.5 compares Gaze Plot with and without CAN 4.
3.1.Total gaze time
The total gaze time was 273.9 ± 39.7 seconds with CAN 4 and 274.5 ± 44.1 seconds without CAN 4.
There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.78> 0.05).
3.2.S-con monitor
The gaze time of the S-con monitor was 130.6 ± 33.9 seconds with CAN 4 and 115.1 ± 35.2 seconds without CAN 4.
A statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.04 <0.05).
The relative gaze ratio increased by about 13% with CAN 4.
3.3.D-con monitor
D-con monitor's gaze time was 8.4 ± 8.3 seconds with CAN and 19.3 ± 22.0 seconds without CAN.
Statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.02 <0.05).
The relative gaze ratio decreased by about 44% with CAN 4.
3.4.Injector monitor
The gaze time of the injector monitor was 2.6 ± 2.8 seconds with CAN and 5.2 ± 2.5 seconds without CAN.
A statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.000 <0.001).
The relative gaze ratio of the injector monitor decreased by about 50% with CAN 4.
3.5.RIS monitor
The gaze time of the RIS monitor was 39.8 ± 22.5 seconds with CAN 4 and 37.9 ± 20.9 seconds without CAN 4.
There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.67> 0.05).
The relative gaze ratio of RIS monitor increased by about 5% with CAN 4.
3.6.Patient monitoring monitor
Patient monitoring gaze time was 1.1 ± 3.3 seconds with CAN 4 and 2.3 ± 4.2 seconds without CAN 4.
A statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.000 <0.001).
The relative gaze ratio of the patient monitoring monitor decreased by 9% with CAN 4.
3.7.Laboratory
Laboratory Direction Fixation time for gaze direction was 16.0 ± 10.0 seconds with CAN 4 and 8.0 ± 5.6 seconds without CAN 4.
A statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.0001 <0.001).
The relative gaze ratio of the direction of the examination room gaze increased by about 100% with CAN 4.
3.8.
Gaze range that does not fall under (3.2 - 3.7)
The gaze time of not applicable gaze range was 75.3 ± 27.7 seconds with CAN 4 and 86.7 ± 27.3 seconds without CAN 4,
with statistically significant difference (P = 0.02 <0.05).
The relative gaze ratio of non-applicable gaze range decreased by about 13% with CAN 4.
3.9. Consideration
The total gaze time and the standard deviation with and without CAN 4 in CECT are almost the same,and Gaze data was collected with good accuracy.
S-con monitor,
laboratory gaze increased relative gaze ratio,
the ratio of injector monitor,
D-con monitor,
and patient monitoring monitor decreased greatly. RIS monitor and other gaze ranges were small.Although we predicted that gaze to the injector monitor would be reduced from the beginning,
we could actually reduce the gaze time of the injector during CECT examination. The burden on the operator in setting the injector has been proved to decrease.
The operator needs to watch the operation of various monitors in the CT examination.
CAN 4 connection proved to improve the inspection environment.
At present,
the waveform at the injection of the contrast medium is not displayed on the CT operation monitor,
but if this is improved,
the burden on the operator will further decrease.
In addition,
improving operability is devoted to patient monitoring,
which leads to safe CT examination.
Analysis by gaze distribution can be utilized in various situations.
Since the used eyeglasses were excellent in wearing feeling,
it was possible to collect data without burdening the observer.
This is considered to be a tool for scientific analysis of safe examination enforcement.
This study has several limitations.
Since the number of cases per operator was limited,
evaluation between observers and within the observer was not sufficient.
Moreover,
the inspection environments of the two CT systems are not completely identical.
Due to the low elapsed time since the introduction of the CAN 4 system,
it may be possible that the proficiency of the operator's operation was influenced by the collected data.