Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Digital Imaging logoLink to Journal of Digital Imaging
. 1997 Nov;10(4):158–168. doi: 10.1007/BF03168838

A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems

Jihong Wang 1,2,✉, Steve Langer 1,2
PMCID: PMC3452987  PMID: 9399169

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to further inform radiologists, physicists, technologists, and engineers working with digital image display devices of issues related to human perception. This article will briefly review the effects of several factors in human perception that are specifically relevant to a digital display environment. These factors include the following: the spatial and contrast resolution of the display device; back-ground luminance level and luminance range of the display system; brightness uniformity; extraneous light in the reading room; displayed field size; viewing distance; image motion and monitor flickering; signal to noise ratio of the displayed image; magnification functions; and the user interface. After reviewing the perception study results, a checklist of desirable features and quality assurance issues for a digital display workstation are presented as an appendix.

Key words: picture archiving and communications systems (PACS), quality assurance/control, visual perception, evaluation

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.1 MB).

References

  • 1.Horri SC. Electronic imaging workstations: Ergonomic issues and the user interface. Radiographics. 1992;12:773–787. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.12.4.1636039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Roehrig H, Blume H, Ji TL, et al. Performance tests and quality control of cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging. 1990;3:134–145. doi: 10.1007/BF03167599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dwyer SJ, Stewart BK, William MB. Performance characteristics and image fidelity of gray-scale monitors. Radiographics. 1992;12:765–772. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.12.4.1636038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rogers DC, Johnston RE, Pizer SM. Predicting PACS console requirements from radiologists' reading habits. Proc SPIE. 1985;536:88–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fuji Photo Film Co, Ltd: Fuji Computed Radiography Technical Review, No. 1 and No. 2, Minto-ku, Tokyo, 1993
  • 6.Taylor JH. Use of visual performance data in visibility prediction. Applied Optics. 1964;3:562–569. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Blume H, Roehig H, Brown M, et al. Comparison of the physical performance of high resolution CRT displays and films recorded by laser image printers and displayed on light-boxes and the need for a display standard. Proc SPIE. 1990;1232:97–114. doi: 10.1117/12.18846. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schober HA, Hilz R. Contrast sensitivity of the human eye for square-wave gratings. J Opt Soc Am A. 1965;55:1086–1091. doi: 10.1364/JOSA.55.001086. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Van MA. Resolution and contrast sensitivity at low luminance. Vision Res. 1972;12:825–833. doi: 10.1016/0042-6989(72)90008-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Van Nes FL, Bouman MA. Spatial modulation transfer in the human eye. J Opt Soc Am. 1967;57:401–406. doi: 10.1364/JOSA.57.000401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Patel AS. Spatial resolution by the human visual system. The effect of mean retinal illuminance. J Opt Soc Am A. 1966;56:689–694. doi: 10.1364/JOSA.56.000689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Blackwell HR. The evaluation of interior lighting on the basis of visual criteria. Applied Optics. 1967;6:1443–1467. doi: 10.1364/AO.6.001443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bartleson CJ, Witzel RF. Illumination for color transparencies. Phot Sci Eng. 1967;11:329–335. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rogers DC, Johnston RE. Effect of ambient light on electronically displayed medical images as measured by luminance-discimination threshold. J Opt Soc Am A. 1987;4:976–983. doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.4.000976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kimme-Smith C, Haus AG, Bruhl N, et al. Effects of ambient light and view box luminance on the detection of calcifications in mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:775–778. doi: 10.2214/ajr.168.3.9057533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Alter AJ, Kargas GA, Kargas SA, et al. The influence of ambient and viewbox light upon visual detection of low-contrast targets in a radiograph. Invest Radiol. 1987;17:402–406. doi: 10.1097/00004424-198207000-00018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wang J, Gray J: Paper title. Presented as a scientific exhibit at the Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, IL, December 1, 1995
  • 18.Enoch JM. Effect of the size of a complex display upon visual search. J Opt Soc Am A. 1959;49:280–286. doi: 10.1364/JOSA.49.000280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Campbell FW, Kulikowski JJ, Levinson J. The effect of orientation on the visual resolution of gratings. J Physiol (Lond) 1966;187:427–436. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp008100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Leibowitz H. Some observations and theory on the variation of visual acuity with the orientation of the test objects. J Opt Soc Am A. 1953;43:902–905. doi: 10.1364/JOSA.43.000902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ludvigh E, Miller JW. Study of visual acuity during the ocular pursuit of moving test objects. J Opt Soc Am A. 1958;48:799–802. doi: 10.1364/JOSA.48.000799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Horne EP, Whitcomb MA, editors. Vision research reports (pub 835) Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council; 1960. pp. 70–74. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Digital Imaging are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES