Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: Influence of display phosphor

Academic Radiology

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 161-166

  Krupinski, Elizabeth ^a   Johnson, Jeffrey ^b   Roehrig, Hans ^a   Lubin, Jeffrey ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b SARNOFF CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast radiography, technology; Cathode ray tubes; Diagnostic radiology, observer performance; Images, display

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; COMPUTER MODEL; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL SYSTEM;

EID: 0037304827     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80040-5     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures 1997. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society Publications, 1997.
2. Huynh PT, Jarolimek AM, Daye S. The false-negative mammogram. RadioGraphics 1998; 18:1137-1154.
3. Bassett LW, Manjikian V, Gold RH. Mammography and breast cancer screening (review). Surg Clin North Am 1990; 70:775-800.
4. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:613-617.
5. Goergen SK, Evans J, Cohen GPB, MacMillan JH. Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists. Radiology 1997; 204:131-135.
6. Ascher S, Shtern F, Winfield D, et al. Final report of the Technology Transfer Workshop on Breast Cancer Detection, Diagnosis, and Treatment. Acad Radiol 1998; 5(suppl 3):S465-S501.
7. Huang HK. Digital mammography: a missing link to a totally digital radiology department. Presented at the 15th International EuroPACS Meeting, Pisa, Italy, September 25-27, 1997.
8. Yaffe M. Development of full field digital mammography. In: Karssemeiier N, Thijssen M, Hendriks J, Van Erning L, eds. Digital mammography: Nijmegen, 1998. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1998; 3-10.
9. Shtern F, Winfield D, Behlen F, et al. Report of the Working Group on Digital Mammography: digital displays and workshop design. Acad Radiol 1999; 6(suppl 4):S195-S219.
10. Johnson JP, Lubin J, Krupinski EA, Peterson HA, Roehrig H, Baysinger A. Visual discrimination model for digital mammography. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 1999; 3663:253-263.
11. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H. Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search. Acad Radiol 1999; 6:411-418.
12. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H. The influence of a perceptually linearized display on observer performance and visual search. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:8-13.
13. Abbey CK, Barrett HH. Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. J Opt Soc Am 2001; 18:473-488.
14. Eckstein MP, Abbey CK, Bochud FO. Visual signal detection in structural backgrounds. IV. Figures of merit for model performance in multiple-alternative forced-choice detection tasks with correlated responses. J Opt Soc Am 2000; 17:206-217.
15. Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 2001; 28: 419-437.
16. Jackson WB, Beebee P, Jared DA, et al. X-ray image system design using a human visual model. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 1996; 2708:29-40.
17. Jackson WB, Said MR, Jared DA, Larimer JO, Gille JL, Lubin J. Evaluation of human visual models for predicting human-observer performance. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 1997; 3036:64-73.
18. Lubin J. A visual system discrimination model for imaging system design and evaluation. In: Peli E, ed. Visual models for target detection and recognition. New York, NY: World Scientific, 1995; 245-283.
19. Lubin J, Brill MH, Crane RL. Vision model-based assessment of distortion magnitudes in digital video. Presented at the International Academy of Broadcasting Made to Measure technical seminar, Montreux, Switzerland, November 6-8, 1996.
20. Fechner GT. Elements of psychophysics. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966.
21. Schade OH. Electro-optical characteristics of television systems. I. Characteristics of vision and visual systems. RCA Rev 1948; 9:5-37.
22. Roehrig H. The monochrome cathode ray tube display and its performance. In: Kim Y, Horii SC, eds. Handbook of medical imaging. Vol 3: Display and PACS. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE, 2000; 155-220.
23. Roehrig H, Krupinski EA. Image quality of monochrome and color displays for PACS workstations. In: Lemke HU, Vannier MW, Inamura K, Farman AG, eds. CARS '99. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, 1999; 335-340.
24. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H. Pulmonary nodule detection and visual search: P45 and P104 monochrome versus color monitor displays. Acad Radiol 2002; 9:638-645.
25. Westheimer G. The eye as an optical instrument. In: Boff K, Kaufman L, Thomas J, eds. Handbook of perception and human performance. New York, NY: Wiley, 1986.
26. Peli E. Contrast in complex images. J Opt Soc Am 1990; 7:2032-2040.
27. Burt PJ, Adelson EH. The Laplacian pyramid as a compact image code. IEEE Trans Commun 1983; 31:532-540.
28. Watson A. Summation of grating patches indicates many types of detector at one retinal location. Vis Res 1982; 22:17-26.
29. Phillips GC, Wilson HR. Orientation bandwidths of spatial mechanisms measured by masking. J Opt Soc Am 1984; 1:226-232.
30. Nachmias J, Sansbury RV. Grating contrast: discrimination may be better than detection. Vis Res 1974; 14:1039-1042.
31. Hoekstra J, van der Goot DPJ, van der Brink G, Bilsen FA. The influence of the number of cycles upon the visual contrast detection threshold for spatial sinewave patterns. Vis Res 1974; 14:365-368.
32. Heath M, Bowyer KW, Kopans D, et al. Current status of the Digital Database for Screening Mammography. In: Karssemeijer N, Thijssen M, Hendriks J, Van Erning L, eds. Digital mammography. Boston, Mass: Kluwer Academic, 1998; 457-460.
33. Johnson JP, Lubin J, Nafzinger J, Chakraborty D. Visual discrimination modeling of lesion detectability. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 2002; 4686:248-255.
34. Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, Lubin J. Optimizing softcopy mammography displays using a human visual system model: influence of display phosphor. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 2002; 4686:331-337.
35. Roehrig H, Blume H, Ji TL, Browne M. Performance tests and quality control of cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging 1990; 3:134-145.
36. Blume H. Members of ACR/NEMA Working Group XI. The ACR/NEMA proposal for grey-scale display function standard. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 1996; 2707:344-360.
37. Blume H, Hemminger BM. Image presentation in digital radiology: perspectives on the emerging DICOM display function standard and its application. RadioGraphics 1997; 17:769-777.
38. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 1992; 27:723-731.