TY - JOUR
T1 - A laboratory evaluation of an auditory display designed to enhance intraoperative monitoring
AU - Loeb, Robert G.
AU - Fitch, W. Tecumseh
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - Encouraged by the popularity of the pulse oximeter pulse-tone, we developed and tested an auditory display of six physiologic variables. The display consisted of a cardiovascular sound triggered by every heartbeat (conveying heart rate) and a respiratory sound triggered by every breath (conveying respiratory rate). Attributes of the cardiovascular sound were modulated to convey hemoglobin saturation and blood pressure, and those of the respiratory sound were modulated to denote end-tidal CO2 and tidal volume. Three display formats (auditory, visual, and combined) were compared. Fourteen anesthesia residents monitored dynamic displays of 6 variables to detect and identify 6 predefined events during 21 trials. An event occurred during each trial and the subject's task was to detect when it started and then identify the type of event. Subjects detected every event. They detected events more rapidly with the combined display (10.4 s) than with the visual (12.8 s) or auditory (13.0 s) displays. Subjects correctly identified events least often with the auditory display (60% versus visual 88% and combined 80%). They correctly identified events more quickly with the combined display than with the visual display. We conclude that, with little training, clinicians can successfully detect and identify simulated clinical events using an auditory display of six variables.
AB - Encouraged by the popularity of the pulse oximeter pulse-tone, we developed and tested an auditory display of six physiologic variables. The display consisted of a cardiovascular sound triggered by every heartbeat (conveying heart rate) and a respiratory sound triggered by every breath (conveying respiratory rate). Attributes of the cardiovascular sound were modulated to convey hemoglobin saturation and blood pressure, and those of the respiratory sound were modulated to denote end-tidal CO2 and tidal volume. Three display formats (auditory, visual, and combined) were compared. Fourteen anesthesia residents monitored dynamic displays of 6 variables to detect and identify 6 predefined events during 21 trials. An event occurred during each trial and the subject's task was to detect when it started and then identify the type of event. Subjects detected every event. They detected events more rapidly with the combined display (10.4 s) than with the visual (12.8 s) or auditory (13.0 s) displays. Subjects correctly identified events least often with the auditory display (60% versus visual 88% and combined 80%). They correctly identified events more quickly with the combined display than with the visual display. We conclude that, with little training, clinicians can successfully detect and identify simulated clinical events using an auditory display of six variables.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036148885&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036148885&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1213/00000539-200202000-00025
DO - 10.1213/00000539-200202000-00025
M3 - Article
C2 - 11812700
AN - SCOPUS:0036148885
SN - 0003-2999
VL - 94
SP - 362
EP - 368
JO - Anesthesia and analgesia
JF - Anesthesia and analgesia
IS - 2
ER -