Soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs: Effect of ambient light and automatic optimization of monitor luminance

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 180-185

  Uffmann, Martin ^a   Prokop, Mathias ^b   Kupper, Walter ^c   Mang, Thomas ^a   Fiedler, Volker ^d   Schaefer Prokop, Cornelia ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

^d HELIOS KLINIKUM KREFELD   (Germany)

Author keywords

Ambient light; Automated brightness adjustment; Digital chest radiography; Soft copy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRIGHTNESS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LIGHT; LUMINANCE; LUNG NODULE; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 14244269852     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000153658.15272.91     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Otto D, Bernhardt T, Rapp-Bernhardt U, et al. Subtle pulmonary abnormalities: detection on monitors with varying spatial resolutions and maximum luminance levels compared with detection on storage phosphor radiographic hard copies. Radiology. 1998;207:237-242.
2. Steckel RJ, Batra P, Johnson S, et al. Comparison of hard- and soft-copy digital chest images with different matrix sizes for managing coronary care unit patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:837-841.
3. Graf B, Simon U, Eickmeyer F, et al. IK versus 2K monitor: a clinical alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic study of observer performance using pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1067-1074.
4. O'Connor P, Davies A, Fowler R, et al. Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation. Radiology. 1998;207:249-254.
5. Kosuda S, Kaji T, Kobayashi H, et al. Hard-copy versus soft-copy with and without simple image manipulation for detection of pulmonary nodules and masses. Acta Radiol. 2000;41:420-424.
6. Kundel HL, Gefter W, Aronchick J, et al. Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard- and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology. 1997;205:859-863.
7. Kundel HL, Polansky M, Dalinka MK, et al. Reliability of soft-copy versus hard-copy interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a prototype study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:525-528.
8. Razavi M, Sayre JW, Taira RK, et al. Receiver-operating-characteristic study of chest radiographs in children: digital hard-copy film vs 2K × 2K soft-copy images. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;158:443-448.
9. Partan G, Mayrhofer R, Urban M, et al. Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray-tube monitors in brain computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2397-2401.
10. Prokop M, Schaefer C, Oestmann J, et al. Improved parameters for unsharp mask filtering of digital chest radiographs. Radiology. 1993;187:521-526.
11. Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, et al. Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 1998;27(5):293-297.
12. Reiner B, Siegel E, Hooper F, et al. Variation of monitor luminance on radiologist productivity in the interpretation of skeletal radiographs using a picture archiving and communication system. J Digit Imaging. 1997;10(3 Suppl 1):176.
13. Groth DS, Bernatz SN, Fetterly KA, et al. Cathode ray tube quality control and acceptance testing program: initial results for clinical PACS displays. Radiographics. 2001;21:719-732.
14. Mertelmeier T. Why and how is soft copy reading possible in clinical practice? J Digit Imaging. 1999;12:3-11.
15. Ikeda M, Ishigaki T, Shimamoto K, et al. Influence of monitor luminance change on observer performance for detection of abnormalities depicted on chest radiographs. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:57-63.
16. Ishihara S, Shimamoto K, Ikeda M, et al. CRT diagnosis of pulmonary disease: influence of monitor brightness and room illuminance on observer performance. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2002;26:181-185.
17. Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Krupinski EA. Digital radiographic image presentation and display. In: Samei E, Durham NC, eds. Advances in Digital Radiography: RSNA Categorical Course in Diagnostic Radiology Physics. Oak Brook: Radiological Society of North America, Inc; 2003:79-89.
18. Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek RV, Thomas JA, et al. Effect of room illuminance on monitor black level luminance and monitor calibration. J Digit Imaging. 2003;16:350-355.
19. DIN6868-57-2001. Image quality assurance in x-ray diagnostics: acceptance testing for image display devices. The German Standards Institution. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. 2001.
20. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborti D, et al. Assesssment of display performance for medical imaging systems. Draft report of the American Association of Physicist in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 18 Version 9.0; 2002.
21. Itoh Y, Ishigaki T, Sakuma S, et al. Influence of CRT workstation on observer's performance. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1992;37:253-258.
22. Klein HM, Stargardt A, Grehl T, et al. [Effect of ambient lighting on the diagnostic efficiency of display screen workplaces]. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 1994;160:168-172.
23. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Hellmich M, et al. Influence of room lighting on grey-scale perception with a CRT-and a TFT monitor display. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31:193-197.
24. Fuchsjager MH, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Eisenhuber E, et al. Impact of ambient light and window settings on the detectability of catheters on soft-copy display of chest radiographs at bedside. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:1415-1421.
25. Sailer J, Prokop M, Neitzel U, et al. Comparison of an automatic versus a semiautomatic mode for gray-scale adaptation for digital chest radiography. Invest Radiol. 2004;39:325-333.
26. Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG, et al. Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology. 2004;232:762-766.
27. Pavlicek W, Owen JM, Peter MB. Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging. 2000;13(2 Suppl 1):155-161.
28. Kotter E, Bley TA, Saueressig U, et al. Comparison of the detectability of high- and low-contrast details on a TFT screen and a CRT screen designed for radiologic diagnosis. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:719-724.