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

Academic Radiology

Volumn 10, Issue 9, 2003, Pages 1030-1035

  Krupinski, Elizabeth A ^a   Johnson, Jeffrey ^b   Roehrig, Hans ^a   Engstrom, Michael ^a   Fan, Jiahua ^a   Nafziger, John ^c   Lubin, Jeffrey ^c   Dallas, William J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b SIEMENS CORPORATE RESEARCH   (United States)

^c SARNOFF CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

CRT monitor; MTF; Observer performance; Vision model

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; CATHODE RAY OSCILLOSCOPE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DEVICE; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MAMMOGRAPHY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MODULATION TRANSFER FUNCTION; MONITOR; OBSERVATION; PERFORMANCE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TUBE; VALIDATION PROCESS; VISUAL DISPLAY UNIT; VISUAL SYSTEM;

EID: 0041817694     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1076-6332(03)00293-9     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Furukawa T. Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search. Acad Radiol 1999; 6:411-418.
2. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H. The influence of a perceptually linearized display on observer performance and visual search. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:8-13.
3. Krupinski EA, Roehrig H. Pulmonary nodule detection and visual search: P45 and P104 monochrome versus color monitor displays. Acad Radiol 2002; 9:638-645.
4. Roehrig H. The monochrome cathode ray tube display and its performance. In: Kim Y, Horii SC, eds. Handbook of medical imaging volume 3. Display and PACS. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press, 2000; 155-220.
5. Reiker GG, Blume H, Slone RM, Woodward PM, et al. Filmless digital chest radiography within the radiology department. Proc SPIE Med Imag 1997; 3035:355-368.
6. 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.
7. Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 2001; 28: 419-437.
8. 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.
9. Lubin J. A visual discrimination model for imaging system design and evaluation. In: Peli E, eds. Visual models for target detection and recognition. Singapore: World Scientific Publishers, 1995; 245-283.
10. Lubin J. The use of psychophysical data and models in the analysis of display system performance. In: Watson AB, eds. Digital images and human vision. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993; 163-178.
11. Jackson WB, Said MR, Jared DA, Larimer JO, Gille JL, Lubin J. Evaluation of human vision models for predicting human observer performance. Proc SPIE Med Imag 1997; 3036:64-73.
12. Heath M, Bower 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, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998; 457-460.
13. Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, Lubin J. Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of display phosphor. Acad Radiol 2003; 10:161-166.
14. 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.
15. Roehrig H, Fan J, Krupinski EA, Gandhi K, Furukawa T, Ohashi M. LCDs versus CRTs, a comparative performance evaluation. Radiology 2002; 225(P):186.