Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Digital Imaging logoLink to Journal of Digital Imaging
. 2000 May;13(Suppl 1):155–161. doi: 10.1007/BF03167650

Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: Comparison with cathode ray tube displays

William Pavlicek 1,2,✉, James M Owen 1,2, Mary Beth Peter 1,2
PMCID: PMC3453245  PMID: 10847388

Abstract

Fifteen large-area, flat-panel displays used for clinical image review were evaluated for image quality and compared with 30 comparably sized cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Measurements were of image display patterns by Video Electronic Standards Association (VESA) and a commercial product. Field measurements were made of maximum and minimum luminance, ambient lighting, characteristic curve (gamma), point shape and size, high-contrast resolution, uniformity, and distortion. Assessments were made of pixel defects, latent image patterns, ghosting artifacts, and viewing angle luminance. Also, a questionnaire was generated for users of the flat-panel and CRT units. Seventeen respondents indicated no preference for either flat panel or CRT. Results show these flat panels to have higher luminance (mean, 177.7 cd/m2); larger number of just noticeable differences (JNDs; n=555), higher gamma, comparable uniformity, and warm-up time. CRTs had less angle viewing dependence and far fewer artifacts (ghosting and latent images). Our questionnaire showed active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCD) to be fully acceptable for clinical image viewing. Furthermore, the statistical results show that further testing for new AMLCDs of this type is unwarranted.

Full Text

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

References

  • 1.Erickson B, Ryan W, Gehring D, et al. Image display for clinicians on medical record workstations. J Digit Imaging. 1997;10(suppl):38–40. doi: 10.1007/BF03168653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pavlicek W, Zavalkovskiy B, Eversman W, et al. Performance and function of a multiple star topology image management system at Mayo Clinic Scottsdale. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12(suppl):168–174. doi: 10.1007/BF03168791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Eversman WG, Pavlicek W, Zavalkovskiy B, et al. Performance and function of a desktop viewer at Mayo Clinic Scottsdale. J Digit Imaging. 2000;13(suppl 1):147–152. doi: 10.1007/BF03167648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mattern C, Erickson B, King B, et al. Impact of electronic imaging on clinician behavior in the urgent care setting. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12(suppl):148–151. doi: 10.1007/BF03168785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.MultiSync LCD 2010 Users Manual. Itasca, IL, NEC Technologies, 1999
  • 6.Blume H, Hemminger B. Image presentation in digital radiology: perspectives on the emerging DICOM display function standard and its application. Proc Radiol Soc North Am. 1997;213(suppl):769–777. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.17.3.9153711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Flat Panel Display Measurements Standard Version 1.0. San Jose, CA, Video Electronics Standards Association, 1999
  • 8.Gray J, Lisk K, Haddics D, et al. Test pattern for video displays and hard copy cameras. Radiology. 1985;154:519–527. doi: 10.1148/radiology.154.2.3966138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.DICOM Image Quality Standards. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM). Part 14, Grayscale Standard Display Function. Rossyln, VA, 1998, p 3, 14
  • 10.Flynn M, Badano A. Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12:50–59. doi: 10.1007/BF03168843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Umezu N, Nakano Y, Sakai T, et al. Specular and diffuse reflection measurement feasibility study of ISO9241, Part 7 method. Displays. 1998;19:17–25. doi: 10.1016/S0141-9382(98)00027-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schenkman B, Fukuda T, Persson B. Glare from monitors measured with subjective scales and eye movements. Displays. 1999;20:11–21. doi: 10.1016/S0141-9382(98)00055-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Teunissen K, Hamberg R, Martens J. The optimal glass transmission coefficient as a function of the level of diffuse ambient illumination. Displays. 1997;17:94–99. doi: 10.1016/S0141-9382(96)01026-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sarma K: Active-Matrix LCDs. San Jose, CA Society for Information Display, Seminar Lecture Notes, 1999
  • 15.Monarchie D, Budzilek R, Cupero F. Sunlight viewable electroluminescent displays for military application. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine. 1995;10:21–25. doi: 10.1109/62.406818. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Menozzi M, Napflin U, Krueger H. CRT versus LCD: A pilot study on visual performance and suitability of two display technologies for use in office work. Displays. 1999;20:3–10. doi: 10.1016/S0141-9382(98)00051-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hangiandreou N, Fetterly K, Felmlee J. Optimization of a contrast-detail based method for electronic image display quality evaluation. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12:60–67. doi: 10.1007/BF03168844. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hemminger B, Dillon A, Johnston R, et al. Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms. Med Phys. 1999;26:2266–2272. doi: 10.1118/1.598740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pasquale F, Deng H, Fernandez A, et al. Theoretical and experimental study of nematic liquid crystal display cells using the in-plane-switching mode. IEEE Transact Electron Devices. 1999;46:661–668. doi: 10.1109/16.753698. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Travis D, Stewart T. Statistical methods for testing the visual quality of displays. Displays. 1997;18:29–36. doi: 10.1016/S0141-9382(97)00001-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Roehrig H. Guest Editorial: Image quality assurance for CRT display systems. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12:1–2. doi: 10.1007/BF03168620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Roehrig H, Willis C, Damento M. Characterization of monochrome CRT display systems in the field. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12:152–165. doi: 10.1007/BF03168851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.American College of Radiology Standard for Teleradiology. Reston, VA, ACR, effective 1/1/99
  • 24.Spekowius G. Characterization of color CRT display systems for monochrome applications. J Digit Imaging. 1999;12:102–113. doi: 10.1007/BF03168629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.1992 Ergonomic requirements for office work with display terminals (VDTs), Part 3 Visual display requirements. 7.2. Statistical test. V5.3 1–15. Geneva: Switzerland; 1999. [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES