Comparison between a dorsal and a belt tactile display prototype for decoding physiological events in the operating room.

Objective: Vibrotactile display technology represents an innovative method to communicate vital information on patients from physiological monitoring devices to clinicians. The increasing number of sensors used in clinical practice has increased the amount of information required to be communicated,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Clinical Monitoring & Computing Vol. 23; no. 3; pp. 137 - 148
Autores principales: Barralon P, Dumont G, Schwarz SK, Magruder W, Mark Ansermino J, Barralon, Pierre, Dumont, Guy, Schwarz, Stephan K W, Magruder, William, Mark Ansermino, J
Formato: clinical trial research Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Jun2009
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=105539659&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 105539659
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        13871307
        OHC
      jtl: Journal of Clinical Monitoring & Computing
      issn: 13871307
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2009
      vid: 23
      iid: 3
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
      place: New York, New York
    artinfo:
      ui:
        105539659
        40419301
        NLM19360477
        2010290804
        10.1007/s10877-009-9175-y
        NLM19360477
        105539659
      ppf: 137
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Comparison between a dorsal and a belt tactile display prototype for decoding physiological events in the operating room.
      aug:
        au:
          Barralon P
          Dumont G
          Schwarz SK
          Magruder W
          Mark Ansermino J
          Barralon, Pierre
          Dumont, Guy
          Schwarz, Stephan K W
          Magruder, William
          Mark Ansermino, J
        affil: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
      sug:
        subj:
          Data Display
          Diagnosis, Computer Assisted Equipment and Supplies
          Intraoperative Care Equipment and Supplies
          Monitoring, Physiologic Equipment and Supplies
          Task Performance and Analysis
          Touch
          User-Computer Interface
          Clinical Trials
          Equipment Design
          Equipment Failure
          Operating Rooms Methods
          Human
      ab: Objective: Vibrotactile display technology represents an innovative method to communicate vital information on patients from physiological monitoring devices to clinicians. The increasing number of sensors used in clinical practice has increased the amount of information required to be communicated, overwhelming the capacity of visual and auditory displays. The capacity to communicate could be increased with the use of a tactile display. In this study, we have compared a dorsal (DTD) and belt tactile (TB) display prototype in terms of learnability, error rate, and efficiency.Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized preclinical study with non-clinicians in a simulated clinical setting to compare the two tactile display prototypes. Information encoded in the tactile message included the type of physiological parameter monitored, the direction of change, and the magnitude of change. Following a period of training, 24 alerts were repeated three times for each display in random order. Each subject evaluated each display. Experiments were repeated with the addition of a distraction task.Results: DTD stimuli were easier to learn (52 trials compared to 101 trials; P = 0.0003), but the accuracy in decoding following training did not differ between the two prototypes. The DTD took longer to display the information, resulting in a faster TB response time (start of stimulus to response; 9.3 +/- 1.4 s [mean +/- SD] vs. DTD, 10.0 +/- 1.4 s; F[1,27] = 4.66; P = 0.04). However, the DTD had a faster response interval (end of stimulus to response) compared to the TB (5.6 +/- 1.4 s vs. 8.0 +/- 1.4 s; F[1,27] = 47.91; P < 0.0001). Compared to the TB, performance was affected less by distraction with the DTD.Conclusions: The communication of information on physiological parameters by tactile displays was easy to learn and accurate for both prototypes. The DTD was easier to learn and affected less by distraction. Further evaluation is required in a clinical setting with expert users to determine the clinical applicability of these prototypes.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        clinical trial
        research
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N