Abstract
The authors previously reported a general technique based on contrast-detail methods to provide an overall quantitative evaluation of electronic image display quality. The figure-of-merit reflecting overall display quality is called maximum threshold contrast or MTC. In this work we have optimized the MTC technique through improvements in both the test images and the figure-of-merit computation. The test images were altered to match the average luminance with that observed for clinical computed radiographic images. The figure-of-merit calculation was altered to allow for contrast-detail data with slopes not equal to −1. Preliminary experiments also were conducted to demonstrate the response of the MTC measurements to increased noise in the displayed image. MTC measurements were obtained from five observers using the improved test images displayed with maximum monitor luminance settings of 30-, 50-, and 70-ft-Lamberts. Similar measurements were obtained from two observers using test images altered by the addition of a low level of image noise. The noise-free MTC and MTC difference measurements exhibited standard deviations of 0.77 and 1.55, respectively. This indicates good measurement precision, comparable or superior to that observed using the earlier MTC technique. No statistically significant image quality differences versus maximum monitor luminance were seen. The noise-added MTC measurements were greater than the noise-free values by an average of 4.08 pixel values, and this difference was statistically significant. This response is qualitatively correct, and is judged to indicate good sensitivity of the MTC measurement to increased noise levels.
Key words: contrast-detail experiments, electronic image display, image quality evaluation
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.4 MB).
References
- 1.Senol E, Muka E: Spatial frequency characteristics of CRT soft-copy displays, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1995: Image Display. Proc SPIE 2431:302–315, 1995
- 2.Weibrecht M, Spekowius G, Quadfleig P, et al: Image quality assessment of monochrome monitors for medical soft copy display, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1997: Image Display. Proc SPIE 3031:232–244, 1997
- 3.Launders JH, Kengyelics SM, Cowen AR. A comprehensive physical image quality evaluation of a selenium based digital x-ray imaging system for thorax radiography. Med Phys. 1998;25:986–997. doi: 10.1118/1.598276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cohen G, DiBianca FA. The use of contrast-detail-dose evaluation of image quality in a computed tomographic scanner. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1979;3:189–195. doi: 10.1097/00004728-197904000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Constable RT, Henkelman RM. Contrast, resolution and detectability in MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1991;15:297–303. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199103000-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Dobbins JT, Rice JJ, Beam CA, et al. Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: Implications for chest radiography. Radiology. 1992;183:179–187. doi: 10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hangiandreou NJ, Fetterly KA, Bernatz SN, et al. Quantitative evaluation of overall electronic display quality. J Digit Imaging. 1998;11(suppl 1):180–186. doi: 10.1007/BF03168299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Yu T. Observer performance comparison of digital radiographic systems for stereotactic breast needle biopsy. Acta Radiol. 1995;2:116–122. doi: 10.1016/S1076-6332(05)80144-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mertelmeier T, Kocher TE: Monitor simulations for the optimization of medical soft copies, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1996: Image Display. Proc SPIE 2707:322–333, 1996
- 10.Muka E, Mertelmeier T, Slone RM, et al: Impact of phosphor luminance noise on the specification of high-resolution CRT displays for medical imaging, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1997: Image Display. Proc SPIE 3031:210–221, 1997
- 11.Hangiandreou NJ, King BF, Swensen AR, et al. Picture archive and communication system implementation in a community medicine practice. J Digit Imaging. 1997;10(suppl 1):36–37. doi: 10.1007/BF03168652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rose A. The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. J Soc Opt Am. 1948;38:196–208. doi: 10.1364/JOSA.38.000196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wagner RF, Brown DG. Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems. Phys Med Biol. 1985;30:489–518. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/30/6/001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cook LT, Cox GG, Insana MF, et al. Comparison of a cathode-ray-tube and film for display of medical images. Med Phys. 1998;25:1132–1138. doi: 10.1118/1.598304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Blume H, Members of the ACR/NEMA Working Group XI: The ACR/NEMA proposal for a gray-scale display function standard, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1996: Image Display. Proc SPIE 2707:344–360, 1996
- 16.Cohen G, McDaniel DL, Wagner LK. Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments. Med Phys. 1984;11:469–473. doi: 10.1118/1.595539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]