Download PDF
AJP Rep 2016; 06(04): e359-e366
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593605
Case Report
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Categorizing Fetal Heart Rate Variability with and without Visual Aids

Amanda J. Ashdown
1   Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Mark W. Scerbo
1   Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Lee A. Belfore II
2   Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Stephen S. Davis
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Alfred Z. Abuhamad
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

12 July 2016

02 September 2016

Publication Date:
06 October 2016 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study examined the ability of clinicians to correctly categorize images of fetal heart rate (FHR) variability with and without the use of exemplars.

Study Design A sample of 33 labor and delivery clinicians inspected static FHR images and categorized them into one of four categories defined by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) based on the amount of variability within absent, minimal, moderate, or marked ranges. Participants took part in three conditions: two in which they used exemplars representing FHR variability near the center or near the boundaries of each range, and a third control condition with no exemplars. The data gathered from clinicians were compared with those from a previous study using novices.

Results Clinicians correctly categorized more images when the FHR variability fell near the center rather than the boundaries of each range, F (1,32) = 71.69, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.69. They also correctly categorized more images when exemplars were available, F (2,64) = 5.44, p = 0.007, partial η2 = 0.15. Compared with the novices, the clinicians were more accurate and quicker in their category judgments, but this difference was limited to the condition without exemplars.

Conclusion The results suggest that categorizing FHR variability is more difficult when the examples fall near the boundaries of each NICHD-defined range. Thus, clinicians could benefit from training with visual aids to improve judgments about FHR variability and potentially enhance safety in labor and delivery.

Keywords

categorization - cues - clinical judgment - exemplars - fetal heart rate variability
 

  • References

  • 1 Freeman RK. Problems with intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring interpretation and patient management. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100 (4) 813-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Menihan CA, Zottoli EK. Electronic Fetal Monitoring: Concepts and Applications. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Sweha A, Hacker TW, Nuovo J. Interpretation of the electronic fetal heart rate during labor. Am Fam Physician 1999; 59 (9) 2487-2500
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Macones GA, Hankins GDV, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (3) 661-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Figueras F, Albela S, Bonino S , et al. Visual analysis of antepartum fetal heart rate tracings: inter- and intra-observer agreement and impact of knowledge of neonatal outcome. J Perinat Med 2005; 33 (3) 241-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ayres-de-Campos D, Bernardes J, Costa-Pereira A, Pereira-Leite L. Inconsistencies in classification by experts of cardiotocograms and subsequent clinical decision. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106 (12) 1307-1310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ashby FG, Boynton G, Lee WW. Categorization response time with multidimensional stimuli. Percept Psychophys 1994; 55 (1) 11-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Das-Smaal EA, De Swart JH. Variation within categories. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1984; 57: 165-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Das-Smaal EA, De Swart JH. Effects of contrasting category, conjoint frequency and typicality on categorization. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1986; 62: 15-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kok EM, de Bruin AB, Robben SG, van Merriënboer JJ. Learning radiological appearances of diseases: does comparison help?. Learn Instr 2013; 23: 90-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kurtz KJ, Gentner D. Detecting anomalous features in complex stimuli: the role of structured comparison. J Exp Psychol Appl 2013; 19 (3) 219-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wickens CD, Hollands JG. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Gentner D, Gunn V. Structural alignment facilitates the noticing of differences. Mem Cognit 2001; 29 (4) 565-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Markman AB, Gentner D. The effects of alignability on memory. Psychol Sci 1997; 8 (5) 363-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ashdown AJ, Scerbo MW, Belfore II LA, Abuhamad AZ, Davis SS. Categorizing fetal heart rate variability with and without visual aids. In: Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of Human Factors & Ergonomics Society; October 26–30, 2015; Los Angeles, CA
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Belfore II LA, Scerbo MW, Anderson BL. A fetal heart rate monitor simulator. Virginia Beach, VA: ModSim World; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Vandierendonck A. Concept learning, memory and transfer of dot pattern categories. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1984; 55 (1) 71-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chaney FB, Teel KS. Improving inspector performance through training and visual aids. J Appl Psychol 1967; 51 (4) 311-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hall LM, Hannon DJ, Leisk GG, Wolfberg AJ, House MD. Measurement of fetal heart rate variability on an electronic monitor using a prototype electronic ruler. Am J Perinatol 2012; 29 (6) 409-413
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Loft S, Smith RE, Remington RW. Minimizing the disruptive effects of prospective memory in simulated air traffic control. J Exp Psychol Appl 2013; 19 (3) 254-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gunn DV, Warm JS, Nelson WT, Bolia RS, Schumsky DA, Corcoran KJ. Target acquisition with UAVs: vigilance displays and advanced cuing interfaces. Hum Factors 2005; 47 (3) 488-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Posner MI, Nissen MJ, Ogden WC. Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. In: Pick H, Saltzmann E, , eds. Modes of Perceiving and Processing Information. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1978: 137-157
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Posner MI, Snyder CR, Davidson BJ. Attention and the detection of signals. J Exp Psychol 1980; 109 (2) 160-174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hahn U, Bailey TM, Elvin LB. Effects of category diversity on learning, memory, and generalization. Mem Cognit 2005; 33 (2) 289-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Balslev T, Jarodzka H, Holmqvist K , et al. Visual expertise in paediatric neurology. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2012; 16 (2) 161-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Klein GA, Hoffman RR. Seeing the invisible: Perceptual-cognitive aspects of expertise. In: Rabinowitz M, , ed. Cognitive Science Foundations of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1993: 203-226
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Lowe DG. Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition. Boston, MA: Kluwer; 1985
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kennedy RA, Anderson-Montoya BL, Scerbo MW , et al. The influence of visual aids on detecting early and late decelerations in maternal-fetal heart rate patterns. In: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of Human Factors & Ergonomics Society; October 22–26, 2012; Boston, MA; 2012: 1317-1321
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wertheimer M. Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In: Ellis WD, , ed. A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. London, United kingdom: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company; 1938: 71-88
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar