Literature DB >> 20686790

A validated subjective rating of display quality: the Maryland Visual Comfort Scale.

F Jacob Seagull1, Erica Sutton, Tommy Lee, Carlos Godinez, Gyusung Lee, Adrian Park.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery requires high-quality imaging to provide effective visual displays to surgeons. Whereas objective measures--pixels, resolution, display size, contrast ratio--are used to compare imaging systems, there are no tools for assessing the perceptual impact of these physical measures. We developed the "Maryland Visual Comfort Scale" (MVCS) to measure perceptual qualities in relation to an imaging system. We theorize that what the surgeon perceives as a high-quality image can be summarized by a scoring of seven characteristics related to human perception, and that image quality is not homogenous across a video display such that object location impacts perception and display quality.
METHOD: We created a rating scale for seven dimensions of display characteristics (contrast, detail, brightness, lighting uniformity, focus uniformity, color, sharpness). For validation, 30 participants viewed test patterns and manipulated physiologic images, rating the image quality for all seven dimensions as well as giving an overall rating. Image ratings for contrast and detail dimensions were assessed across five locations on the video display. For ratings, two imaging systems were used, differing primarily in the 10-mm zero-degree scope's quality: a standard scope and one taken from service for quality degradation.
RESULTS: The rating scale was sensitive to differences in scope quality for all seven items in the MVCS (all p values<0.01). Significant differences existed between quality ratings at central and peripheral locations (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: This seven-item rating scale for assessing visual comfort is reliable and sensitive to scope quality differences. The scale is sensitive to degradation of image quality at video display edges. These seven dimensions of display characteristics can be refined to create a psychometric to serve as a composite of perceptual quality in laparoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20686790     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1220-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  8 in total

1.  Imaging systems in minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  S D Schwaitzberg
Journal:  Semin Laparosc Surg       Date:  2001-03

2.  Characterizing the "gold standard" image for laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  S I Brown; C White; K Wipat; G B Hanna; T G Frank; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  Visual cues in the interpretation of medical images.

Authors:  H L Kundel
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 2.177

4.  Informative frame classification for endoscopy video.

Authors:  JungHwan Oh; Sae Hwang; JeongKyu Lee; Wallapak Tavanapong; Johnny Wong; Piet C de Groen
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 8.545

Review 5.  Epistemology of visual imaging in endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-03-16       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  One size (doesn't) fit all.

Authors:  Bruce Reiner
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 5.532

7.  Factors affecting the psychophysical image quality evaluation of mobile phone displays: the case of transmissive liquid-crystal displays.

Authors:  Youn Jin Kim; M Ronnier Luo; Wonhee Choe; Hong Suk Kim; Seung Ok Park; Yeseul Baek; Peter Rhodes; Seongdeok Lee; Chang Yeong Kim
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.129

8.  Image rotation and reversal--major obstacles in learning intracorporeal suturing and knot-tying.

Authors:  M Medina
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  1997 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.172

  8 in total
  4 in total

1.  Remote evaluation of laparoscopic performance using the global operative assessment of laparoscopic skills.

Authors:  Ian Choy; Andras Fecso; Josephine Kwong; Tim Jackson; Allan Okrainec
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-08-14       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Feasibility of remote administration of the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) skills test using Google wearable device.

Authors:  Anton Nikouline; M Carolina Jimenez; Allan Okrainec
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The impact of preventable disruption on the operative time for minimally invasive surgery.

Authors:  Latif Al-Hakim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Getting started in endoscopic ear surgery.

Authors:  Peter Ryan; Carolina Wuesthoff; Nirmal Patel
Journal:  J Otol       Date:  2018-11-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.