Literature DB >> 8177157

Perceptual comparison of pulsed and continuous fluoroscopy.

R Aufrichtig1, P Xue, C W Thomas, G C Gilmore, D L Wilson.   

Abstract

Pulsed fluoroscopy (hereafter called pulsed) at reduced acquisition rates, typically 15 acq/s (pulsed-15), is proposed to reduce x-ray dose in interventional procedures. However, since the human visual system (HVS) acts as a temporal low-pass filter that interacts with such acquisitions, the proper dose for pulsed must be obtained in perception experiments. We determine the dose for low-frame-rate pulsed that gives visualization equivalent to that of conventional 30 acq/s fluoroscopy, hereafter called continuous. Computer-generated phantoms are used. They consist of stationary, low-contrast disks on a flat background containing Poisson noise that mimics quantum noise in fluoroscopy. Image sequences are displayed on the video tachistoscope, a device with considerable display flexibility. Three experimental paradigms are used. (1) In a paired-comparison study, pulsed and continuous are displayed side-by-side on the same monitor, and the visibility of a contrast detail phantom is compared. (2) Using this same display, subjects record the minimally detectable disk contrast (the min-contrast measurement). (3) In a four-alternative forced-choice experiment, a disk is placed in one of four positions, and the subject determines the position of the disk. The methods are complementary--the forced-choice experiment properly eliminates the subjectivity of the observer threshold while the paired-comparison study is much more time efficient. With regard to pulsed and continuous comparisons, remarkable similarity is found between the supra-threshold experiments (1 and 2) and the detectability experiment (3); i.e., the average absolute differences in the equivalent-perception dose as determined by the three measures is approximately 3%. No difference is found between interlaced and noninterlaced display. A relatively small dependence of dose savings on disk size is found with larger disks giving increased dose savings. Average dose savings of 22%, 38%, and 49% are found for pulsed-15, pulsed-10, and pulsed-7.5, respectively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8177157     DOI: 10.1118/1.597285

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


  14 in total

1.  Quantifying and minimizing radiation exposure during pediatric cardiac catheterization.

Authors:  R M Campbell; M J Strieper; P A Frias; G Jeager; G Balfour; L Costello; K M Sullivan
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.655

2.  The principle of digital subtraction angiography and radiological protection.

Authors:  K Okamoto; J Ito; K Sakai; S Yoshimura
Journal:  Interv Neuroradiol       Date:  2001-05-15       Impact factor: 1.610

3.  Implementation of a channelized Hotelling observer model to assess image quality of x-ray angiography systems.

Authors:  Christopher P Favazza; Kenneth A Fetterly; Nicholas J Hangiandreou; Shuai Leng; Beth A Schueler
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-03-25

4.  Can We Reduce Frame Rate to 15 Images per Second in Pediatric Videofluoroscopic Swallow Studies?

Authors:  Julie Layly; Franck Marmouset; Guillaume Chassagnon; Philippe Bertrand; Dominique Sirinelli; Jean-Philippe Cottier; Baptiste Morel
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 3.438

5.  Pediatric interventional radiography equipment: safety considerations.

Authors:  Keith J Strauss
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2006-09

Review 6.  Management of pediatric radiation dose using GE fluoroscopic equipment.

Authors:  Barry Belanger; John Boudry
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2006-09

7.  Preliminary investigation of the effect of pulse rate on judgments of swallowing impairment and treatment recommendations.

Authors:  Heather Shaw Bonilha; Julie Blair; Brittni Carnes; Walter Huda; Kate Humphries; Katlyn McGrattan; Yvonne Michel; Bonnie Martin-Harris
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2013-04-05       Impact factor: 3.438

Review 8.  A Tutorial on Diagnostic Benefit and Radiation Risk in Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Studies.

Authors:  Harry R Ingleby; Heather S Bonilha; Catriona M Steele
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 3.438

9.  Foveated Model Observers for Visual Search in 3D Medical Images.

Authors:  Miguel A Lago; Craig K Abbey; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 10.048

10.  A Study to Compare the Radiation Absorbed Dose of the C-arm Fluoroscopic Modes.

Authors:  Jae Hun Cho; Jae Yun Kim; Joo Eun Kang; Pyong Eun Park; Jae Hun Kim; Jeong Ae Lim; Hae Kyoung Kim; Nam Sik Woo
Journal:  Korean J Pain       Date:  2011-11-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.