Ambient lighting: Setting international standards for the viewing of softcopy chest images

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

Volumn 6515, Issue , 2007, Pages

  McEntee, Mark F ^a   Ryan, John ^a   Evanoff, Michael G ^b   Keeling, Aoife ^c   Chakraborty, Dev ^d   Manning, David ^e   Brennan, Patrick C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b American Board of Radiology   (United States)

^c BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CUMBRIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Diagnostic performance; Evaluation methodologies; Optimized displays; Sensitivity and specificity; Teleradiology and telemedicine

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAYS; RADIOLOGY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STANDARDS; VISUALIZATION;

DIAGNOSTIC-PERFORMANCE; EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES; OPTIMIZED DISPLAYS; TELERADIOLOGY;

IMAGE ANALYSIS;

EID: 35148853191     PISSN: 16057422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.706772     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Parsons DM, Kim Y, Haynor DR. Quality control of cathode-ray tube monitors for medical imaging using a simple photometer. J Digit Imaging, (1995) 8:10-20.
2. Roehrig H. The monochrome cathode ray tube display and its performance. In: Kim Y & Horii SC, Eds. Handbook of medical imaging.(2000) Vol. 3 Bellingham WA: SPIE press, pp 156-220.
3. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems, Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 18, Publication, 2002.
4. Al-Qattan E. Image quality variations across European and Asian X-ray departments. (2004) PhD thesis, UCD Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
5. Baiter S. An investigation of ambient light in the interventional fluoroscopy laboratory. Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging International Symposium. (2005) 209.
6. 6.Uffmann M, Prokop M, Kupper W, Mang T, Fiedler V, Schaefer-Prokop C. Soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs: effect of ambient light and automatic optimization of monitor luminance. Invest Radiol., (2005); 40:180-5.
7. Wade C, Brennan PC. Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting. Br J Radiol., (2004) 77:465-471.
8. Manning DJ, Ethell SC, Donovan T. Detection or decision errors? Missed lung cancer from the posteroanterior chest radiograph. Br J Radiol., (2004) 77:231-5.
9. Birkelo CC, Chamberlain WE, Phelps PS, Schools PE, Zacks D, Yerushalmy J. Tuberculosis case finding: Comparison of effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods. JAMA, (1947), 133: 359-366.
10. Yerushalmy, J. The reliability of chest roentgenography and its clinical implications. Diseases of the Chest, (1953)24, 133.
11. Manning DJ, Gale A, Krupinski EA. Perception research in medical imaging. Br J of Radiol., (2005) 78, 683-685.
12. Mc Entee M, Brennan P, Evanoff M, Phillips P, O'Connor WT, Manning D. Optimum ambient lighting conditions for the viewing of softcopy radiological images. Medical Imaging 2006: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and technology assessment. Proceedings of the International Society of Optical Engineering Vol. 6146, 61460W 1-9 May 2006.
13. Krupinski E, Johnson J., Roehrig H., Nafziger J., Lubin J.. On-Axis and Off-Axis Viewing of Images on CRT Displays and LCDs. Observer Performance and Vision Model Predictionsl. Academic Radiology, (2003) 12(8): 957-964 E.
14. Wade C, Brennan PC. Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting. Br J Radiol., (2004); 77:465-471.
15. Fuchsjager MH, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Eisenhuber E, Homolka P, Weber M, Funovics MA, Prokop M. Impact of ambient light and window settings on the detectability of catheters on soft-copy display of chest radiographs at bedside. Am J Roentgenol. (2003) 181:1415-21.
16. Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG, Lee HJ, Chung MJ, Han D, Park SH, Kim JH, Nam SH. Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology. (2004) 232:762-6.
17. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys., (2005) 32:1205-25.
18. WHO. Quality Assurance in Diagnostic Radiology. World Health Organisation, Geneva, 1982.
19. Commission of the European Communities. Criteria for acceptability of radiological (including Radiotherapy) and nuclear installations. Radiation Protection No. 91. Luxembourg: CEC, 1997.
20. American College of Radiology. Guideline for the Performance of Whole Breast Digital Mammography. ACR Practice Guideline 2001 Res.7