Literature DB >> 26127048

Effect of color visualization and display hardware on the visual assessment of pseudocolor medical images.

Silvina Zabala-Travers1, Mina Choi1, Wei-Chung Cheng1, Aldo Badano1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Even though the use of color in the interpretation of medical images has increased significantly in recent years, the ad hoc manner in which color is handled and the lack of standard approaches have been associated with suboptimal and inconsistent diagnostic decisions with a negative impact on patient treatment and prognosis. The purpose of this study is to determine if the choice of color scale and display device hardware affects the visual assessment of patterns that have the characteristics of functional medical images.
METHODS: Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was the basis for designing and performing experiments. Synthetic images resembling brain dynamic-contrast enhanced MRI consisting of scaled mixtures of white, lumpy, and clustered backgrounds were used to assess the performance of a rainbow ("jet"), a heated black-body ("hot"), and a gray ("gray") color scale with display devices of different quality on the detection of small changes in color intensity. The authors used a two-alternative, forced-choice design where readers were presented with 600 pairs of images. Each pair consisted of two images of the same pattern flipped along the vertical axis with a small difference in intensity. Readers were asked to select the image with the highest intensity. Three differences in intensity were tested on four display devices: a medical-grade three-million-pixel display, a consumer-grade monitor, a tablet device, and a phone.
RESULTS: The estimates of percent correct show that jet outperformed hot and gray in the high and low range of the color scales for all devices with a maximum difference in performance of 18% (confidence intervals: 6%, 30%). Performance with hot was different for high and low intensity, comparable to jet for the high range, and worse than gray for lower intensity values. Similar performance was seen between devices using jet and hot, while gray performance was better for handheld devices. Time of performance was shorter with jet.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the choice of color scale and display hardware affects the visual comparative analysis of pseudocolor images. Follow-up studies in clinical settings are being considered to confirm the results with patient images.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26127048      PMCID: PMC5148121          DOI: 10.1118/1.4921125

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


  38 in total

1.  Noise in flat-panel displays with subpixel structure.

Authors:  Aldo Badano; Robert M Gagne; Robert J Jennings; Sarah E Drilling; Benjamin R Imhoff; Edward Muka
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Assessing heterogeneity of lesion enhancement kinetics in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  A Karahaliou; K Vassiou; N S Arikidis; S Skiadopoulos; T Kanavou; L Costaridou
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Rainbow color map (still) considered harmful.

Authors:  David Borland; M Russell Taylor
Journal:  IEEE Comput Graph Appl       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.088

4.  The effect of ambient illumination on handheld display image quality.

Authors:  Peter Liu; Fahad Zafar; Aldo Badano
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Resident iPad use: has it really changed the game?

Authors:  Seth J Berkowitz; Justin W Kung; Ronald L Eisenberg; Kevin Donohoe; Leo L Tsai; Priscilla J Slanetz
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Automated breast segmentation of fat and water MR images using dynamic programming.

Authors:  José A Rosado-Toro; Tomoe Barr; Jean-Philippe Galons; Marilyn T Marron; Alison Stopeck; Cynthia Thomson; Patricia Thompson; Danielle Carroll; Eszter Wolf; María I Altbach; Jeffrey J Rodríguez
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 7.  Radiology on handheld devices: image display, manipulation, and PACS integration issues.

Authors:  Bhargav Raman; Raghav Raman; Lalithakala Raman; Christopher F Beaulieu
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

8.  Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation.

Authors:  Rachel J Toomey; John T Ryan; Mark F McEntee; Michael G Evanoff; Dev P Chakraborty; Jonathan P McNulty; David J Manning; Edel M Thomas; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 9.  Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer.

Authors:  John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 10.  Human Factors and Human-Computer Considerations in Teleradiology and Telepathology.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2014-02-19
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  T2 mapping in myocardial disease: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Aaron T O'Brien; Katarzyna E Gil; Juliet Varghese; Orlando P Simonetti; Karolina M Zareba
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 6.903

2.  Taking pigeons to heart: Birds proficiently diagnose human cardiac disease.

Authors:  Victor M Navarro; Edward A Wasserman; Piotr Slomka
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.986

Review 3.  Basal and Acetazolamide Brain Perfusion SPECT in Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis.

Authors:  Teck Huat Wong; Qaid Ahmed Shagera; Hyun Gee Ryoo; Seunggyun Ha; Dong Soo Lee
Journal:  Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2020-01-08
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.