JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Loeb, R. G. Articles by Fitch, W. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Loeb, R. G. Articles by Fitch, W. T. Related Collections Monitoring (Non-cardiac)

---

TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING, AND SIMULATION

A Laboratory Evaluation of an Auditory Display Designed to Enhance Intraoperative Monitoring

Robert G. Loeb, MD^*, and W. Tecumseh Fitch, PhD

*Department of Anesthesiology, University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, Tucson, Arizona; and Department of Psychology, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Massachusetts

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Robert Loeb, MD, PO Box 245114, Tucson, AZ 85724-5114. Address e-mail to RLoeb{at}U.Arizona.edu

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.

IMPLICATIONS: We developed and tested an auditory display of multivariable clinical data. With little training, clinicians successfully used the display to detect and diagnose simulated critical events. This suggests that a multivariable auditory display could enhance intraoperative monitoring.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. M. Sanderson, M. O. Watson, W. J. Russell, S. Jenkins, D. Liu, N. Green, K. Llewelyn, P. Cole, V. Shek, and S. S. Krupenia Advanced Auditory Displays and Head-Mounted Displays: Advantages and Disadvantages for Monitoring by the Distracted Anesthesiologist Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2008; 106(6): 1787 - 1797. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M. Sanderson, M. O. Watson, and W. J. Russell Advanced Patient Monitoring Displays: Tools for Continuous Informing Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2005; 101(1): 161 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999