A comparison of perceived image quality between computer display monitors and augmented reality smart glasses

A England; J Thompson; S Dorey; S Al-Islam; M Long; C Maiorino; M F McEntee

doi:10.1016/j.radi.2023.04.010

A comparison of perceived image quality between computer display monitors and augmented reality smart glasses

Radiography (Lond). 2023 May;29(3):641-646. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2023.04.010. Epub 2023 Apr 30.

Authors

A England¹, J Thompson², S Dorey³, S Al-Islam⁴, M Long⁵, C Maiorino⁵, M F McEntee⁵

Affiliations

¹ Discipline of Medical Imaging & Radiation Therapy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. Electronic address: aengland@ucc.ie.
² University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Barrow-in-Furness, UK.
³ Tameside and Glossop Integrated Care NHS Foundation Trust, Tameside, UK.
⁴ East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Blackburn, UK.
⁵ Discipline of Medical Imaging & Radiation Therapy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

PMID: 37130492
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2023.04.010

Abstract

Introduction: Augmented-reality (AR) smart glasses provide an alternative to standard computer display monitors (CDM). AR smart glasses may provide an opportunity to improve visualisation during fluoroscopy and interventional radiology (IR) procedures when there can be difficulty in viewing intra-procedural images on a CDM. The aim of this study was to evaluate radiographer perception of image quality (IQ) when comparing CDM and AR smart glasses.

Methods: 38 radiographers attending an international congress evaluated ten fluoroscopic-guided surgery and IR images on both a CDM (1920 × 1200 pixels) and a set of Epson Moverio BT-40 AR smart glasses (1920 × 1080 pixels). Participants provided oral responses to pre-defined IQ questions generated by study researchers. Summative IQ scores for each participant/image were compared between CDM and AR smart glasses.

Results: Of the 38 participants, the mean age was 39 ± 1 years. 23 (60.5%) participants required corrective glasses. In terms of generalisability, participants were from 12 different countries, the majority (n = 9, 23.7%) from the United Kingdom. For eight out of ten images, the AR smart glasses demonstrated a statistically significant increase in perceived IQ (median [IQR] 2.0 [-1.0 to 7.0] points) when compared to the CDM.

Conclusion: AR smart glasses appear to show improvements in perceived IQ when compared to a CDM. AR smart glasses could provide an option for improving the experiences of radiographers involved in image-guided procedures and should be subject to further clinical evaluations.

Implications for practice: Opportunities exist to improve perceived IQ for radiographers when reviewing fluoroscopy and IR images. AR smart glasses should be further evaluated as a potential opportunity to improve practice when visual attention is split between positioning equipment and image review.

Keywords: Augmented reality; Fluoroscopy; Image quality comparison; Smart glasses; Wearable device.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adult
Augmented Reality*
Eyeglasses
Humans
Smart Glasses*
United Kingdom