Trend of contrast detection threshold with and without localization

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1099-1106

  Leong, David L ^a   Rainford, Louise ^a   Haygood, Tamara Miner ^b   Whitman, Gary J ^b   Geiser, William R ^b   Adrada, Beatriz E ^b   Santiago, Lumarie ^b   Brennan, Patrick C ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

contrast threshold; GSDF; Image perception; LKE; ROC; SKE

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST THRESHOLD; GSDF; IMAGE PERCEPTION; LKE; ROC; SKE;

DIGITAL IMAGING AND COMMUNICATIONS IN MEDICINE (DICOM);

GROUND OPERATIONS;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DOSE RESPONSE; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DATA DISPLAY; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; FORECASTING; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84888204771     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-013-9589-4     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Hemminger BM, Johnston RE, Rolland JP, Muller KE: Introduction to perceptual linearization of video display systems for medical image presentation. J Digit Imaging 8:21-34, 1995
2. American College of Radiology. Practice Guideline for Digital Radiography, Reston, VA, 2007
3. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, Flynn MJ, Hemminger B, Hangiandreou N, Johnson J, Moxley-Stevens DM, Pavlicek W, Roehrig H, Rutz L, Shepard J, Uzenoff RA, Wang J, Willis CE: Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205-1225, 2005
4. IHE Technical Framework Volume I Integration Profiles, Chicago, IL, 2007
5. Kroon H: Overall x-ray system simulation model developed for system design and image quality versus patient dose optimization. SPIE, San Diego, California, USA, 2003
6. Barten PGJ: Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, WA, 1999
7. Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF: Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419-437, 2001
8. Wang J, Xu J, Baladandayuthapani V: Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS. Med Phys 36:3682-3692, 2009
9. Burgess AE, Jacobson F, Judy P: Mass discrimination in mammography: experiments using hybrid images. Acad Radiol 10:1247-1256, 2003
10. Tchou P, Flynn MJ, Peterson E: 2AFC assessment of contrast threshold for a standardized target using a monochrome LCD monitor. Proc. Medical Imaging 2004: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment: San Diego, CA, USA, 344-352
11. Kundel HL: Reader error, object recognition, and visual search San Diego. SPIE, California, USA, 2004
12. Leong DL, Haygood TM, Whitman GJ, Tchou PM, Geiser WR, Carkaci S, Rainford L, Brennan PC: Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds. J Digit Imaging 25:662-669, 2012
13. National Electrical Manufacturers Association: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, 2008
14. Bochud F, Abbey C, Eckstein M: Statistical texture synthesis of mammographic images with super-blob lumpy backgrounds. Opt Express 4:33-42, 1999
15. Borjesson S, Hakansson M, Bath M, Kheddache S, Svensson S, Tingberg A, Grahn A, Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Mattsson S, Mansson LG: A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:45-52, 2005
16. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV, Chen YF, Donaghy BA: Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 5:591-602, 1998
17. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723-731, 1992
18. Hillis SL: A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596-619, 2007
19. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. Acad Radiol 11:1260-1273, 2004
20. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. Acad Radiol 12:1534-1541, 2005
21. Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647-661, 2008
22. Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS: A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 24:1579-1607, 2005
23. Medical Image Perception Laboratory [Internet]. Available at http://perception.radiology.uiowa.edu/. Accessed July 27, 2010 2010.
24. Friendly M: Mosaic Displays for Multi-Way Contingency Tables. J Amer Statist Assoc 89:190-200, 1994
25. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Carmody D: Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. Invest Radiol 13:175-181, 1978