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