Technological and psychophysical considerations for digital mammographic displays

Radiographics

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 491-501

  Samei, Ehsan ^a  

^a Duke University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; ILLUMINATION; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; LIGHT EMITTING DIODE; LIQUID CRYSTAL; LUMINANCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; OPTICAL RESOLUTION; RADIODIAGNOSIS; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; VISUAL SYSTEM; ARTIFACT; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REVIEW;

ARTIFACTS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PSYCHOPHYSICS;

EID: 17444389267     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.252045185     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Parr LF, Anderson AL, Glennon BK, Fetherston P. Quality-control issues on high-resolution diagnostic monitors. J Digit Imaging 2001; 14:22-26.
2. Siegel EL, Reiner BI, Hooper F, Severance S, Brower S. The effect of monitor image quality on the soft-copy interpretation of chest CR images. Proc SPIE 2001; 4323:42-46.
3. Eng J, Mysko WK, Weller GE, et al. Interpretation of emergency department radiographs: a comparison of emergency medicine physicians with radiologists, residents with faculty, and film with digital display. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 1233-1238.
4. Scott WW Jr, Bluemke DA, Mysko WK, et al. Interpretation of emergency department radiographs by radiologists and emergency medicine physicians: teleradiology workstation versus radiograph readings. Radiology 1995; 195:223-229.
5. Scott WW Jr, Rosenbaum JE, Ackerman SJ, et al. Subtle orthopedic fractures: teleradiology workstation versus film interpretation. Radiology 1993; 187:811-815.
6. Flynn MJ, Kanicki J, Badano A, Eyler WR. High-fidelity electronic display of digital radiographs. RadioGraphics 1999; 19:1653-1669.
7. Barten PG. Physical model for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye. Proc SPIE 1992; 1666: 57-72.
8. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) part 14: grayscale standard display function. NEMA PS 3.14. Rosslyn, Va: National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 2000.
9. Barten PGJ. Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. Bellingham, Wash: SPIE Optical Engineering Press, 1999.
10. van Meeteren A, Vos JJ. Resolution and contrast sensitivity at low luminances. Vision Res 1972; 12:825-833.
11. Samei E. Performance of digital radiographic detectors: quantification and assessment methods. In: Samei E, Flynn MJ, eds. Syllabus: advances in digital radiography - categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2003; 37-47.
12. Rose A. The sensitivity performance of the human eye on the absolute scale. J Opt Soc Am 1948; 38: 196-208.
13. Badano A, Gagne RM, Jennings RJ, Drilling SE, Imhoff BR, Muka E. Noise in flat-panel displays with subpixel structure. Med Phys 2004; 31:715-723.
14. Specifications for medical diagnostic imaging test pattern for television monitors and hard-copy recording cameras. SMPTE RP 133. White Plains, NY: Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, 1991.
15. Image quality assurance in x-ray diagnostics, acceptance testing for image display devices. DIN-6868-57. Berlin, Germany: Deutsches Institut für Normung, 2001.
16. Flat panel display measurements standard (FPDM). VESA-FPDM. Milpitas, Calif: Video Electronics Standards Association, 2001.
17. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty DP, et al. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems. American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 18. Madison, Wis: Medical Physics Publishing, 2005 (in press).
18. Samei E. Assessment of display quality. In: Samei E, Flynn MJ, eds. Syllabus: advances in digital radiography - categorical course in diagnostic radiology physics. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2003; 109-121.