» Articles » PMID: 15684136

Quantifying Visual Similarity in Clinical Iconic Graphics

Overview
Date 2005 Feb 3
PMID 15684136
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The use of icons and other graphical components in user interfaces has become nearly ubiquitous. The interpretation of such icons is based on the assumption that different users perceive the shapes similarly. At the most basic level, different users must agree on which shapes are similar and which are different. If this similarity can be measured, it may be usable as the basis to design better icons.

Design: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a novel method for categorizing the visual similarity of graphical primitives, called Presentation Discovery, in the domain of mammography. Six domain experts were given 50 common textual mammography findings and asked to draw how they would represent those findings graphically. Nondomain experts sorted the resulting graphics into groups based on their visual characteristics. The resulting groups were then analyzed using traditional statistics and hypothesis discovery tools. Strength of agreement was evaluated using computational simulations of sorting behavior.

Measurements: Sorter agreement was measured at both the individual graphical and concept-group levels using a novel simulation-based method. "Consensus clusters" of graphics were derived using a hierarchical clustering algorithm.

Results: The multiple sorters were able to reliably group graphics into similar groups that strongly correlated with underlying domain concepts. Visual inspection of the resulting consensus clusters indicated that graphical primitives that could be informative in the design of icons were present.

Conclusion: The method described provides a rigorous alternative to intuitive design processes frequently employed in the design of icons and other graphical interface components.

Citing Articles

Developing libraries of semantically-augmented graphics as visual standards for biomedical information systems.

Clarkson M, Roggenkamp S, Detwiler L J Biomed Inform. 2025; 163:104804.

PMID: 39961540 PMC: 11899390. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2025.104804.


A PICTURE'S MEANING: THE DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF PICTOGRAPHS ILLUSTRATING PATIENT DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS.

Perri S, Argo L, Kuang J, Bui D, Hill B, Bray B J Commun Healthc. 2023; 8(4):335-349.

PMID: 36876228 PMC: 9983759. DOI: 10.1080/17538068.2016.1145877.


Research Strategies for Biomedical and Health Informatics. Some Thought-provoking and Critical Proposals to Encourage Scientific Debate on the Nature of Good Research in Medical Informatics.

Haux R, Kulikowski C, Bakken S, de Lusignan S, Kimura M, Koch S Methods Inf Med. 2017; 56(S 01):e1-e10.

PMID: 28119991 PMC: 5388922. DOI: 10.3414/ME16-01-0125.


Clinical Data Visualization: The Current State and Future Needs.

Wanderer J, Nelson S, Ehrenfeld J, Monahan S, Park S J Med Syst. 2016; 40(12):275.

PMID: 27787779 DOI: 10.1007/s10916-016-0643-x.


Improving Clinical Trial Participant Tracking Tools Using Knowledge-anchored Design Methodologies.

Payne P, Embi P, Johnson S, Mendonca E, Starren J Appl Clin Inform. 2011; 1(2):177-196.

PMID: 22132037 PMC: 3225206. DOI: 10.4338/ACI-2010-02-RA-0012.


References
1.
Starren J, Johnson S . An object-oriented taxonomy of medical data presentations. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000; 7(1):1-20. PMC: 61451. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.2000.0070001. View

2.
Patel V, Glaser R, Arocha J . Cognition and expertise: acquisition of medical competence. Clin Invest Med. 2000; 23(4):256-60. View

3.
Patel V, Arocha J, Kaufman D . A primer on aspects of cognition for medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001; 8(4):324-43. PMC: 130077. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.2001.0080324. View

4.
Kim J, Kohane I, Ohno-Machado L . Visualization and evaluation of clusters for exploratory analysis of gene expression data. J Biomed Inform. 2002; 35(1):25-36. DOI: 10.1016/s1532-0464(02)00001-1. View

5.
Hripcsak G, Heitjan D . Measuring agreement in medical informatics reliability studies. J Biomed Inform. 2002; 35(2):99-110. DOI: 10.1016/s1532-0464(02)00500-2. View