Literature DB >> 18649449

Object detectability at increased ambient lighting conditions.

Benjamin J Pollard1, Amarpreet S Chawla, David M Delong, Noriyuki Hashimoto, Ehsan Samei.   

Abstract

Under typical dark conditions encountered in diagnostic reading rooms, a reader's pupils will contract and dilate as the visual focus intermittently shifts between the high luminance display and the darker background wall, resulting in increased visual fatigue and the degradation of diagnostic performance. A controlled increase of ambient lighting may, however, reduce the severity of these pupillary adjustments by minimizing the difference between the luminance level to which the eyes adapt while viewing an image (L(adp)) and the luminance level of diffusely reflected light from the area surrounding the display (L(s)). Although ambient lighting in reading rooms has conventionally been kept at a minimum to maintain the perceived contrast of film images, proper Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) calibration of modern medical-grade liquid crystal displays can compensate for minor lighting increases with very little loss of image contrast. This paper describes two psychophysical studies developed to evaluate and refine optimum reading room ambient lighting conditions through the use of observational tasks intended to simulate real clinical practices. The first study utilized the biologic contrast response of the human visual system to determine a range of representative L(adp) values for typical medical images. Readers identified low contrast horizontal objects in circular foregrounds of uniform luminance (5, 12, 20, and 30 cd/m2) embedded within digitized mammograms. The second study examined the effect of increased ambient lighting on the detection of subtle objects embedded in circular foregrounds of uniform luminance (5, 12, and 35 cd/m2) centered within a constant background of 12 cd/m2 luminance. The images were displayed under a dark room condition (1 lux) and an increased ambient lighting level (50 lux) such that the luminance level of the diffusely reflected light from the background wall was approximately equal to the image L(adp) value of 12 cd/m2. Results from the first study demonstrated that observer true positive and false positive detection rates and true positive detection times were considerably better while viewing foregrounds at 12 and 20 cd/m2 than at the other foreground luminance levels. Results from the second study revealed that under increased room illuminance, the average true positive detection rate improved a statistically significant amount from 39.3% to 55.6% at 5 cd/m2 foreground luminance. Additionally, the true positive rate increased from 46.4% to 56.6% at 35 cd/m2 foreground luminance, and decreased slightly from 90.2% to 87.5% at 12 cd/m2 foreground luminance. False positive rates at all foreground luminance levels remained approximately constant with increased ambient lighting. Furthermore, under increased room illuminance, true positive detection times declined at every foreground luminance level, with the most considerable decrease (approximately 500 ms) at the 5 cd/m2 foreground luminance. The first study suggests that L(adp) of typical mammograms lies between 12 and 20 cd/m2, leading to an optimum reading room illuminance of approximately 50-80 lux. Findings from the second study provide psychophysical evidence that ambient lighting may be increased to a level within this range, potentially improving radiologist comfort, without deleterious effects on diagnostic performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18649449     DOI: 10.1118/1.2907566

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  13 in total

1.  The effects of ambient lighting in chest radiology reading rooms.

Authors:  Benjamin J Pollard; Ehsan Samei; Amarpreet S Chawla; Craig Beam; Laura E Heyneman; Lynne M Hurwitz Koweek; Santiago Martinez-Jimenez; Lacey Washington; Noriyuki Hashimoto; H Page McAdams
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Comparison of detectability of a simple object with low contrast displayed on a high-brightness color LCD and a monochrome LCD.

Authors:  Keita Takahashi; Junji Morishita; Takeshi Hiwasa; Shiro Hatanaka; Shuji Sakai; Noriyuki Hashimoto; Yasuhiko Nakamura; Fukai Toyofuku; Yoshiharu Higashida; Masafumi Ohki
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2010-06-12

3.  Detectability of a lung nodule displayed on a liquid-crystal display monitor with different maximum luminance settings.

Authors:  Keita Takahashi; Masaki Sueoka; Yongsu Yoon; Takeshi Hiwasa; Shiro Hatanaka; Yasuhiko Nakamura; Noriyuki Hashimoto; Masafumi Ohki; Junji Morishita
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2009-09-01

Review 4.  [Ergonomically designed radiology workplace].

Authors:  T Knogler; H Ringl
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 0.635

5.  Prevalence of asthenopia and its risk factors in Chinese college students.

Authors:  Cheng-Cheng Han; Rong Liu; Ru-Ru Liu; Zhong-Hai Zhu; Rong-Bin Yu; Le Ma
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

6.  Comparison between DICOM-calibrated and uncalibrated consumer grade and 6-MP displays under different lighting conditions in panoramic radiography.

Authors:  S Kallio-Pulkkinen; M Haapea; E Liukkonen; S Huumonen; O Tervonen; M T Nieminen
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 2.419

7.  The influence of ambient lighting on the detection of small contrast elements in digital dental radiographs.

Authors:  Till Schriewer; Ralf Schulze; Andreas Filippi; Irene Mischak; Michael Payer; Dorothea Dagassan-Berndt; Sebastian Kühl
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-10-07       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Effect of display type and room illuminance in chest radiographs.

Authors:  Esa Liukkonen; Airi Jartti; Marianne Haapea; Heljä Oikarinen; Lauri Ahvenjärvi; Seija Mattila; Terhi Nevala; Kari Palosaari; Marja Perhomaa; Miika T Nieminen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-12-10       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Human contrast-detail performance with declining contrast.

Authors:  Alisa Walz-Flannigan; Ben Babcock; George C Kagadis; Jihong Wang; Steve G Langer
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Impact of viewing conditions on the performance assessment of different computer monitors used for dental diagnostics.

Authors:  Thomas Hastie; Sascha Venske-Parker; Johan K M Aps
Journal:  Imaging Sci Dent       Date:  2021-02-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.