aiqbench analysis
This study quantifies how false-positive computer-aided detection prompts in colonoscopy divert surgeon attention, revealing significant gaze attraction and prolonged attentional occupation even after the prompt disappears. The findings highlight a critical design challenge for medical AI systems, where incidental artifacts can impose an unnecessary cognitive load on clinicians without improving diagnostic accuracy. For the industry, this underscores the need to optimize alert sensitivity and visual presentation to minimize distraction in safety-critical workflows.
Gaze responses to false-positive computer-aided detection prompts during colonoscopy: a paired-video and real-time eye-tracking study
arXiv:2609.25581v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: False-positive computer-aided detection (CADe) prompts may divert endoscopists' attention during colonoscopy, yet the attentional impact of individual prompts remains unclear. We used event-locked eye tracking to quantify gaze attraction and attention occupation in complementary retrospective and prospective studies. In a retrospective paired-video experiment, 3 senior and 2 novice endoscopists viewed 60 colonoscopy videos with and without CADe. The prospective study recorded gaze during 42 real-time CADe-assisted colonoscopies performed by 9 senior endoscopists. Screened CADe prompts outside expert-annotated lesion windows were classified as false-positive artifact events. False-positive prompts attracted gaze in 48.6% (68/140) of retrospective observations and 65.2% (533/817) of prospective events. Among attraction events with complete recovery, median attention occupation lasted 1000 ms in the retrospective study and 1100 ms in the prospective study. Corresponding median prompt durations were 33 ms and 267 ms, with median time amplifications of 17.55-fold and 5.15-fold, respectively. In paired retrospective comparisons, visible artifact prompts drew gaze closer to the prompted region than did the same-coordinate unassisted reference. Secondary retrospective analyses showed high lesion gaze recognition without and with CADe (98.0% versus 99.0%). First gaze entry into lesion regions occurred 147.8 ms earlier with CADe. Across controlled and real-time clinical settings, false-positive CADe prompts frequently captured gaze, with attention persisting beyond prompt visibility. These findings support considering prompt-related attentional burden in CADe evaluation and design.
Abstract:False-positive computer-aided detection (CADe) prompts may divert endoscopists' attention during colonoscopy, yet the attentional impact of individual prompts remains unclear. We used event-locked eye tracking to quantify gaze attraction and attention occupation in complementary retrospective and prospective studies. In a retrospective paired-video experiment, 3 senior and 2 novice endoscopists viewed 60 colonoscopy videos with and without CADe. The prospective study recorded gaze during 42 real-time CADe-assisted colonoscopies performed by 9 senior endoscopists. Screened CADe prompts outside expert-annotated lesion windows were classified as false-positive artifact events. False-positive prompts attracted gaze in 48.6% (68/140) of retrospective observations and 65.2% (533/817) of prospective events. Among attraction events with complete recovery, median attention occupation lasted 1000 ms in the retrospective study and 1100 ms in the prospective study. Corresponding median prompt durations were 33 ms and 267 ms, with median time amplifications of 17.55-fold and 5.15-fold, respectively. In paired retrospective comparisons, visible artifact prompts drew gaze closer to the prompted region than did the same-coordinate unassisted reference. Secondary retrospective analyses showed high lesion gaze recognition without and with CADe (98.0% versus 99.0%). First gaze entry into lesion regions occurred 147.8 ms earlier with CADe. Across controlled and real-time clinical settings, false-positive CADe prompts frequently captured gaze, with attention persisting beyond prompt visibility. These findings support considering prompt-related attentional burden in CADe evaluation and design.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.25581 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.25581v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.25581 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 314 words
Related coverage
Some Intuitions on Steering Vectors
LessWrong · Sep 29, 2026

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · Sep 13, 2026

An overview of frontier AI company monitoring practices in mid 2026
LessWrong · Oct 7, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026