A preliminary investigation of ambient light in the interventional fluoroscopy laboratory

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 5749, Issue , 2005, Pages 348-358

  Balter, Stephen ^a  

^a NewYork Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambient light; Fluoroscopy; Interventional procedures; Viewing conditions

Indexed keywords

CARDIOLOGY; DISPLAY DEVICES; FLUORESCENT SCREENS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; LABORATORIES; LIGHT; LIGHT SOURCES; LIGHTING; LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; PHOTOGRAPHY; REFLECTION; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; THREE DIMENSIONAL;

AMBIENT LIGHTS; AMBIENT-LIGHT; CLINICAL IMAGES; DIFFUSE REFLECTIONS; FLUOROSCOPY; INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGIES; INTERVENTIONAL-PROCEDURES; KEY ELEMENTS; LCD DISPLAYS; LIGHTING DESIGNS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKINGS; QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES; SPECULAR REFLECTIONS; VIEWING-CONDITIONS;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

EID: 24644469127     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.593701     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Abdullah BJ, Ng KH, In the eyes of the beholder: what we see is not what we get. Br J Radiol, 2001. 74(884): p. 675-6.
2. Badano A, AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview: display systems. Radiographics, 2004. 24(3): p. 879-89.
3. Badano A, Flynn MJ, Martin S, Kanicki J, Angular dependence of the luminance and contrast in medical monochrome liquid crystal displays. Med Phys, 2003. 30(10): p. 2602-13.
4. Balter S, Janower ML, Radiographic Viewing Conditions. Proc SPIE, 1973. 43: p. 225-226.
5. Blackshaw GR, Gostling JA, Appleton BN, Pearce N, Thomas GV, Lewis WG, Illumination of x-rays: the usual lights exposed. Postgrad Med J, 2003. 79(928): p. 99-100.
6. Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD, Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 1998. 27(5): p. 293-7.
7. Flynn MJ, Badano A, Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices. J Digit Imaging, 1999. 12(2): p. 50-9.
8. 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(5): p. 1415-21.
9. Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG, et al., Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in softcopy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology, 2004. 232(3): p. 762-6.
10. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Hellmich M, Nowak G, Noack MJ, Influence of room lighting on grey-scale perception with a CRT-and a TFT monitor display. Dentomaxillofac Radiol, 2002. 31(3): p. 193-7.
11. Horii SC, Horii HN, Mun SK, Benson HR, Zeman RK, Environmental designs for reading from imaging work stations: ergonomic and architectural features. J Digit Imaging, 1989. 2(3): p. 156-62.
12. 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(1): p. 57-63.
13. Kimme-Smith C, Haus AG, DeBruhl N, Bassett LW, Effects of ambient light and view box luminance on the detection of calcifications in mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1997. 168(3): p. 775-8.
14. Kirchner J, Kollath J, [Quality assurance measures within DIN 6856: the adaptation of film viewing boxes and their specifications in the radiology department of a university hospital. Deutsche Industrie-Norm]. Rofo, 1996. 164(2): p. 146-9.
15. Klein HM, Stargardt A, Grehl T, Glaser KH, Gunther RW, [Effect of ambient lighting on the diagnostic efficiency of display screen workplaces]. Rofo, 1994. 160(2): p. 168-72.
16. Launders JH, McArdle S, Workman A, Cowen AR, Update on the recommended viewing protocol for FAXIL threshold contrast detail detectability test objects used in television fluoroscopy. Br J Radiol, 1995. 68(805): p. 70-7.
17. Ly CK, SoftCopy Display Quality Assurance Program at Texas Children's Hospital. J Digit Imaging, 2002. 15 Suppl 1: p. 33-40.
18. McCarthy E, Brennan PC, Viewing conditions for diagnostic images in three major Dublin hospitals: a comparison with WHO and CEC recommendations. Br J Radiol, 2003. 76(902): p. 94-7.
19. Peli E, Arend L, Labianca AT, Contrast perception across changes in luminance and spatial frequency. J Opt Soc Am A, 1996. 13(10): p. 1953-9.
20. Roehrig H, Krupinski EA, Furukawa T, Evaluation of a flat CRT monitor for use in radiology. J Digit Imaging, 2001. 14(3): p. 142-8.
21. Scharitzer M, Prokop M, Weber M, Fuchsjager M, Oschatz E, Schaefer-Prokop C, Detectability of Catheters on Bedside Chest Radiographs: Comparison between Liquid Crystal Display and High-Resolution Cathode-Ray Tube Monitors. Radiology, 2004 (epub ahead of print)
22. Wade C, Brennan PC, Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting. Br J Radiol, 2004. 77(918): p. 465-71.
23. Wang J, Compton K, Peng Q, Proposal of a quality-index or metric for soft copy display systems: contrast sensitivity study. J Digit Imaging, 2003. 16(2): p. 185-202.
24. Wang J, Langer S, A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging, 1997. 10(4): p. 158-68.
25. AAPM, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Task Group 18 Assessment of Display Performance For Medical Imaging Systems, http://deckard.mc.duke.edu/~samei/tg18, Last accessed 8 Jan 2005
26. Diagnostic Imaging: Simple changes can lead to comfort on a shoestring, February 2004, http://www.dimag.com/db_area/archives, Last accessed 8 Jan 2005
27. Diagnostic Imaging: Improper room luminance may hinder interpretation, August 2004, http://www.diagnosticimaging.com/dinews/2004040801.shtml, Last accessed 8 Jan 2005
28. IBM, http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/healthycomputing, Last accessed 8 Jan 2005