Predicting detection task performance using a visual discrimination model

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 5, Issue 26, 2004, Pages 53-61

  Chakraborty, Dev P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Detection; Discrimination; Image quality; Mammography; Model; Observer performance; ROC

Indexed keywords

DETECTABILITY; DETECTION; DISCRIMINATION; JUST-NOTICEABLE-INDEX (JND); MODEL; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE; ROC;

ALGORITHMS; CORRELATION METHODS; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; NATURAL FREQUENCIES; OPTIMIZATION; PATIENT MONITORING; RADIOLOGY;

IMAGE QUALITY;

EID: 12144276220     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.533270     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Metz, C.E., Roc Methodology in Radiologic Imaging. Investigative Radiology, 1986. 21(9): p. 720-733.
2. Metz, C.E., Some Practical Issues of Experimental Design and Data Analysis in Radiological Roc Studies. Investigative Radiology, 1989. 24: p. 234-245.
3. Hendrick, R.E., L. Bassett, and M.A. Botsco, Mammography Quality Control Manual. 4 ed. 1999: American College of Radiology, Committee on Quality Assurance in Mammography.
4. Green, D.M. and J.A. Swets, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. 1966, New York: John Wiley & Sons. 505.
5. Lubin, J., A Visual Discrimination Model for Imaging System Design and Evaluation. Visual Models for Target Detection and Recognition, ed. E. Peli. 1995: World Scientific Publishers.
6. Lubin, J., M.H. Brill, and R.L. Crane. Vision Model-Based Assessment of Distortion Magnitudes in Digital Video, in IAB, Made to Measure technical seminar. 1996. Montreux, Switzerland.
7. Jackson, W.B., P. Beebee, D. Jared, D. Beigelsen, J. Larimer, L. J., and J.L. Gille, X-Ray Image System Design Using a Human Visual Model. Proc. SPIE Medical Imaging, 1996. 2708: p. 29-40.
8. Johnson, J.P., J. Lubin, E.A. Krupinski, H.A. Peterson, H. Roehrig, and A. Baysinger, Visual Discrimination Model for Digital Mammography. Proc. SPIE, Medical Imaging: Image Perception, Observer Performance and Technology Assessment, 1999. 3663: p. 253-263.
9. Krupinksi, E.A., J.A. Johnson, H. Roehrig, B.S. Engstrom, J. Fan, J. Nafziger, J. Lubin, and W.J. Dallas, Using a Human Visual System Model to Optimize Soft-Copy Mammography Display: Influence of Mtf Compensation. Academic Radiology, 2003. 10(9): p. 1030-1035.
10. Krupinski, E.A., J.A. Johnson, H. Roehrig, and J. Lubin, Using a Human Visual System Model to Optimize Soft-Copy Mammography Display: Influence of Display Phosphor. Academic Radiology, 2003. 10(2): p. 161-166.
11. Chakraborty, D.P., E.F. Conant, and J.P. Johnson, Observer Performance Evaluation of a Method of Simulating Abnormalities in Mammograms. Proc. SPIE, Medical Imaging: Image Perception, Observer Performance and Technology Assessment, 2002. 4686: p. 263-272.
12. Johnson, J.P., J. Lubin, J. Nafziger, and D.P. Chakraborty, Visual Discrimination Modeling of Lesion Detectability. Proc. SPIE, Medical Imaging: Image Perception, Observer Performance and Technology Assessment, 2002. 4686: p. 248-255.
13. Burgess, A.E., F.L. Jacobson, and P.P. Judy, Human Observer Detection Experiments with Mammograms and Power-Law Noise. MedPhys, 2001. 28(4): p. 419-37.
14. Burgess, A.E., F.L. Jacobson, and P.P. Judy, On the Detection of Lesions in Mammographic Structure. SPIE, 1999. 3663(Medical Imaging): p. 304-315.
15. Chakraborty, D.P. and H.L. Kundel. Anomalous Nodule Visibility Effects in Mammographic Images, in SPIE Medical Imaging 2001: Image Perception and Performance. 2001. San Diego, CA: SPIE.
16. Burgess, A.E., Comparison of Receiver Operating Characteristic and Forced Choice Observer Performance Measurement Methods. Medical Physics, 1995. 22(5): p. 643-655.