Literature DB >> 26438424

An Evaluation of Performance Characteristics of Primary Display Devices.

Ernest U Ekpo1,2, Mark F McEntee3.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to complete a full evaluation of the new EIZO RX850 liquid crystal display and compare it to two currently used medical displays in Australia (EIZO GS510 and Barco MDCG 5121). The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 18 Quality Control test pattern was used to assess the performance of three high-resolution primary medical displays: EIZO RX850, EIZO GS510, and Barco MDCG 5121. A Konica Minolta spectroradiometer (CS-2000) was used to assess luminance response, non-uniformity, veiling glare, and color uniformity. Qualitative evaluation of noise was also performed. Seven breast lesions were displayed on each monitor and photographed with a calibrated 5.5-MP Olympus E-1 digital SLR camera. ImageJ software was used to sample pixel information from each lesion and surrounding background to calculate their conspicuity index on each of the displays. All monitor fulfilled all AAPM acceptance criteria. The performance characteristics for EIZO RX850, Barco MDCG 5121, and EIZO GS510 respectively were as follows: maximum luminance (490, 500.5, and 413 cd/m(2)), minimum luminance (0.724, 1.170, and 0.92 cd/m(2)), contrast ratio (675:1, 428:1, 449:1), just-noticeable difference index (635, 622, 609), non-uniformity (20, 5.92, and 8.5 %), veiling glare (GR = 2465.6, 720.4, 1249.8), and color uniformity (Δu'v' = +0.003, +0.002, +0.002). All monitors demonstrated low noise levels. The conspicuity index (χ) of the lesions was slightly higher in the EIZO RX850 display. All medical displays fulfilled AAPM performance criteria, and performance characteristics of EIZO RX850 are equal to or better than those of the Barco MDCG 5121 and EIZO GS510 displays.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Barco MDCG 5121; Conspicuity index; EIZO GS510; EIZO RX850; Monitor evaluation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26438424      PMCID: PMC4788624          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-015-9831-3

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


  22 in total

1.  The influence of a perceptually linearized display on observer performance and visual search.

Authors:  E A Krupinski; H Roehrig
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  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

3.  Color nonuniformity in projection-based displays: analysis and solutions.

Authors:  Aditi Majumder; Rick Stevens
Journal:  IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.579

4.  Variations in performance of LCDs are still evident after DICOM gray-scale standard display calibration.

Authors:  Joanna M Lowe; Patrick C Brennan; Michael G Evanoff; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report.

Authors:  Ehsan Samei; Aldo Badano; Dev Chakraborty; Ken Compton; Craig Cornelius; Kevin Corrigan; Michael J Flynn; Bradley Hemminger; Nick Hangiandreou; Jeffrey Johnson; Donna M Moxley-Stevens; William Pavlicek; Hans Roehrig; Lois Rutz; Jeffrey Shepard; Robert A Uzenoff; Jihong Wang; Charles E Willis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Introduction to grayscale calibration and related aspects of medical imaging grade liquid crystal displays.

Authors:  Kenneth A Fetterly; Hartwig R Blume; Michael J Flynn; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of veiling glare.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski; Jeffrey Lubin; Hans Roehrig; Jeffrey Johnson; John Nafziger
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Acceptance tests of diagnostic displays in a PACS system according to AAPM TG18.

Authors:  Andrea Cresp; Francesco Bonsignore; Nicoletta Paruccini; Elena De Ponti; Isabella Macchi
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2006 January - March       Impact factor: 2.685

9.  NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis.

Authors:  Caroline A Schneider; Wayne S Rasband; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 28.547

10.  Role of imaging in the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of thymoma.

Authors:  Marcelo F K Benveniste; Melissa L Rosado-de-Christenson; Bradley S Sabloff; Cesar A Moran; Stephen G Swisher; Edith M Marom
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.333

View more
  2 in total

1.  Comparison of medical-grade and calibrated consumer-grade displays for diagnosis of subtle bone fissures.

Authors:  Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Jonas Welter; Tilman Emrich; Florian Jungmann; Evelyn Dappa; Peter Mildenberger; Roman Kloeckner
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Intercountry analysis of breast density classification using visual grading.

Authors:  Christine N Damases; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 3.039

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.