Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of Experiment 1 results for professionals and non-professionals

From: Mammography to tomosynthesis: examining the differences between two-dimensional and segmented-three-dimensional visual search

Key measures

Radiologists

Non-professionals

Display type (2D vs 3D)

Profession (Professionals vs. non-professionals)

Interaction

2D

3D

2D

3D

False alarm rate (%)

19.14

1.54

24.19

2.15

p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.56, BF10 = 4.24 × 1010

p = 0.35, ηp2 = 0.02, BF10 = 0.29

p = 0.35, ηp2 = 0.02, BF10 = 0.40

Hit rate (%)

40.80

70.25

27.63

64.30

p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.51, BF10 = 1.23 × 109

p = 0.08, ηp2 = 0.05, BF10 = 0.60

p = 0.40, ηp2 = 0.01, BF10 = 0.41

Target-absent response time (s)

45.35

50.49

42.47

51.77

p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.43, BF10 = 6.78 × 106

p = 0.73, ηp2 = 0.00, BF10 = 0.29

p = 0.06, ηp2 = 0.04, BF10 = 1.19

  1. For the key measures, there was a lower false alarm rate, a higher hit rate, and a longer average response time on target-absent trials for segmented-3D displays compared to 2D displays. P values < 0.05 are indicated in bold and the Bayes factors are indicated in italics