Literature DB >> 19746801

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

Jihong Wang1, Jun Xu, Veera Baladandayuthapani.   

Abstract

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18 has published standards and quality control (QC) guidelines to ensure consistency and optimal quality for digital image display systems (DIDSs). In many of these recommended QC tests, static test patterns that contain low-contrast objects are often used to assess and validate the quality of a DIDS. These low-contrast objects often have the shape of circular disks or squares with sharp edges, neither of which resemble most of the diagnostic findings in medical images. On the other hand, circular objects with fuzzy boundaries bear a closer resemblance to lung nodules in chest radiography and masses in mammography; thus, they may be more clinically relevant in assessing display system quality. In this article human observers' contrast sensitivities of circular objects with sharp edges and those with fuzzy ones were investigated. The contrast thresholds of human viewers using a consumer-grade color LCD monitor and a medical-grade monochrome LCD monitor were measured for objects of various sizes displayed against uniform backgrounds with various luminance levels. Contrast-detail curves for circular objects with sharp edges and those with fuzzy boundaries were measured and compared. It was found that contrast thresholds for objects with fuzzy boundaries were higher (i.e., the objects were more difficult to detect) than those with sharp edges. Objects with fuzzy boundaries were potentially more sensitive in distinguishing quality differences among image display devices and thus may be a better QC measurement in detecting subtle deterioration in image display devices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19746801      PMCID: PMC3910133          DOI: 10.1118/1.3173816

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


  26 in total

1.  Characterization of monochrome CRT display systems in the field.

Authors:  H Roehrig; C E Willis; M A Damento
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Image quality assurance for CRT display systems--Part II.

Authors:  H Roehrig
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  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

4.  An interactive method of assessing the characteristics of softcopy display using observer performance tests.

Authors:  Jihong Wang; Qi Peng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2002-03-19       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Quality monitoring of soft-copy displays for medical radiography.

Authors:  G G Reiker; N Gohel; E Muka; G J Blaine
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  Performance tests and quality control of cathode ray tube displays.

Authors:  H Roehrig; H Blume; T L Ji; M Browne
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Performance characteristics and image fidelity of gray-scale monitors.

Authors:  S J Dwyer; B K Stewart; J W Sayre; D R Aberle; M I Boechat; J C Honeyman; J M Boehme; H Roehrig; T L Ji; G J Blaine
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 5.333

8.  The digital imaging workstation.

Authors:  R L Arenson; D P Chakraborty; S B Seshadri; H L Kundel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Quality assurance for picture archiving and communcication systems (PACS) and PACS technology applications in radiology.

Authors:  S C Horii
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.056

10.  Introduction to perceptual linearization of video display systems for medical image presentation.

Authors:  B M Hemminger; R E Johnston; J P Rolland; K E Muller
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.056

View more
  6 in total

1.  Observer performance using virtual pathology slides: impact of LCD color reproduction accuracy.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Louis D Silverstein; Syed F Hashmi; Anna R Graham; Ronald S Weinstein; Hans Roehrig
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Empirical investigation of radiologists' priorities for PACS selection: an analytical hierarchy process approach.

Authors:  Vivek Joshi; Kyootai Lee; David Melson; Vamsi R Narra
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Verification of DICOM GSDF in complex backgrounds.

Authors:  David L Leong; Louise Rainford; Tamara Miner Haygood; Gary J Whitman; Philip M Tchou; William R Geiser; Selin Carkaci; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Trend of contrast detection threshold with and without localization.

Authors:  David L Leong; Louise Rainford; Tamara Miner Haygood; Gary J Whitman; William R Geiser; Beatriz E Adrada; Lumarie Santiago; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  PACS administrators' and radiologists' perspective on the importance of features for PACS selection.

Authors:  Vivek Joshi; Vamsi R Narra; Kailash Joshi; Kyootai Lee; David Melson
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.