Literature DB >> 10342248

Optimization of a contrast-detail-based method for electronic image display quality evaluation.

N J Hangiandreou1, K A Fetterly, J P Felmlee.   

Abstract

The authors previously reported a general technique based on contrast-detail methods to provide an overall quantitative evaluation of electronic image display quality. The figure-of-merit reflecting overall display quality is called maximum threshold contrast or MTC. In this work we have optimized the MTC technique through improvements in both the test images and the figure-of-merit computation. The test images were altered to match the average luminance with that observed for clinical computed radiographic images. The figure-of-merit calculation was altered to allow for contrast-detail data with slopes not equal to -1. Preliminary experiments also were conducted to demonstrate the response of the MTC measurements to increased noise in the displayed image. MTC measurements were obtained from five observers using the improved test images displayed with maximum monitor luminance settings of 30-, 50-, and 70-ft-Lamberts. Similar measurements were obtained from two observers using test images altered by the addition of a low level of image noise. The noise-free MTC and MTC difference measurements exhibited standard deviations of 0.77 and 1.55, respectively. This indicates good measurement precision, comparable or superior to that observed using the earlier MTC technique. No statistically significant image quality differences versus maximum monitor luminance were seen. The noise-added MTC measurements were greater than the noise-free values by an average of 4.08 pixel values, and this difference was statistically significant. This response is qualitatively correct, and is judged to indicate good sensitivity of the MTC measurement to increased noise levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10342248      PMCID: PMC3452489          DOI: 10.1007/BF03168844

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  11 in total

1.  Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography.

Authors:  J T Dobbins; J J Rice; C A Beam; C E Ravin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Contrast, resolution, and detectability in MR imaging.

Authors:  R T Constable; R M Henkelman
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1991 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.826

3.  The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale.

Authors:  A ROSE
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am       Date:  1948-02

4.  Comparison of a cathode-ray-tube and film for display of computed radiographic images.

Authors:  L T Cook; G G Cox; M F Insana; M A McFadden; T J Hall; R S Gaborski; F Y Lure
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  A comprehensive physical image quality evaluation of a selenium based digital x-ray imaging system for thorax radiography.

Authors:  J H Launders; S M Kengyelics; A R Cowen
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Observer performance comparison of digital radiograph systems for stereotactic breast needle biopsy.

Authors:  E A Krupinski; H Roehrig; T Yu
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Picture archive and communication systems implementation in a community medicine practice.

Authors:  N J Hangiandreou; B F King; A R Swenson; W E Webbles; L L Jorgenson
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Unified snr analysis of medical imaging systems.

Authors:  Robert F Wagner; David G Brown
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments.

Authors:  G Cohen; D L McDaniel; L K Wagner
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1984 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  The use of contrast -- detail -- dose evaluation of image quality in a computed tomographic scanner.

Authors:  G Cohen; F A DiBianca
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  1979-04       Impact factor: 1.826

View more
  6 in total

1.  Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: comparison with cathode ray tube displays.

Authors:  W Pavlicek; J M Owen; M B Peter
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Proposal of a quality-index or metric for soft copy display systems: contrast sensitivity study.

Authors:  Jihong Wang; Ken Compton; Qi Peng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2003-09-11       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Three-dimensional virtual cholangioscopy: a reliable tool for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Michele Simone; Didier Mutter; Francesco Rubino; Erik Dutson; Catherine Roy; Luc Soler; Jacques Marescaux
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Frequency and impact of high-resolution monitor failure in a filmless imaging department.

Authors:  E L Siegel; B I Reiner; M Cadogan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Comparison of color LCD and medical-grade monochrome LCD displays in diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  Håkan Geijer; Mats Geijer; Lillemor Forsberg; Susanne Kheddache; Patrik Sund
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS.

Authors:  Jihong Wang; Jun Xu; Veera Baladandayuthapani
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.071

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.