Literature DB >> 22349990

The effects of ambient lighting in chest radiology reading rooms.

Benjamin J Pollard1, Ehsan Samei, Amarpreet S Chawla, Craig Beam, Laura E Heyneman, Lynne M Hurwitz Koweek, Santiago Martinez-Jimenez, Lacey Washington, Noriyuki Hashimoto, H Page McAdams.   

Abstract

Under typical dark chest radiography reading room conditions, a radiologist's pupils contract and dilate as their visual focus intermittently shifts between the high luminance monitor and the darker background wall, resulting in increased visual fatigue and degradation of diagnostic performance. A controlled increase of ambient lighting may minimize these visual adjustments and potentially improve comfort and accuracy. This study was designed to determine the effect of a controlled increase of ambient lighting on chest radiologist nodule detection performance. Four chest radiologists read 100 radiographs (50 normal and 50 containing a subtle nodule) under low (E=1 lx) and elevated (E=50 lx) ambient lighting levels on a DICOM-calibrated, medical-grade liquid crystal display. Radiologists were asked to identify nodule locations and rate their detection confidence. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of radiologist results was performed and area under ROC curve (AUC) values calculated for each ambient lighting level. Additionally, radiologist selection times under both illuminance conditions were determined. Average AUC values did not significantly differ (p>0.05) between ambient lighting levels (estimated mean difference=-0.03; 95% CI, (-0.08, 0.03)). Average selection times decreased or remained constant with increased illuminance. The most considerable decreases occurred for false positive identification times (35.4±18.8 to 26.2±14.9 s) and true positive identification times (29.7±18.3 to 24.5±15.5 s). No performance differences were statistically significant. Study findings suggest that a controlled increase of ambient lighting within darkly lit chest radiology reading rooms, to a level more suitable for performance of common radiological tasks, does not appear to have a statistically significant effect on nodule detection performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22349990      PMCID: PMC3389094          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-012-9459-5

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


  16 in total

1.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

2.  Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs.

Authors:  Jin Mo Goo; Ja-Young Choi; Jung-Gi Im; Hyun Ju Lee; Myung Jin Chung; Daehee Han; Seong Ho Park; Jong Hyo Kim; Sang-Hee Nam
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-07-23       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Kevin S Berbaum
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Ambient illumination revisited: a new adaptation-based approach for optimizing medical imaging reading environments.

Authors:  Amarpreet S Chawla; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2007-02-10       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Object detectability at increased ambient lighting conditions.

Authors:  Benjamin J Pollard; Amarpreet S Chawla; David M Delong; Noriyuki Hashimoto; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis.

Authors:  Stephen L Hillis; Kevin S Berbaum; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; R V Lenth; Y F Chen; B A Donaghy
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Bayesian restoration of chest radiographs. Scatter compensation with improved signal-to-noise ratio.

Authors:  C E Floyd; A H Baydush; J Y Lo; J E Bowsher; C E Ravin
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 6.016

10.  The influence of ambient and viewbox light upon visual detection of low-contrast targets in a radiograph.

Authors:  A J Alter; G A Kargas; S A Kargas; J R Cameron; J C McDermott
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1982 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.016

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  [Ergonomically designed radiology workplace].

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

2.  Radiologist Digital Workspace Use and Preference: a Survey-Based Study.

Authors:  Arjun Sharma; Kenneth Wang; Eliot Siegel
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  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

4.  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

Review 5.  Multi-reader multi-case studies using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve as a measure of diagnostic accuracy: systematic review with a focus on quality of data reporting.

Authors:  Thaworn Dendumrongsup; Andrew A Plumb; Steve Halligan; Thomas R Fanshawe; Douglas G Altman; Susan Mallett
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-26       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Authors:  Ernest Usang Ekpo; Maram Alakhras; Patrick Brennan
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-02-26

7.  Perceived contrast on displays with different luminance ranges.

Authors:  Patrik Sund
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 4.506

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.