Observer Performance Using Monitors With Different Phosphors Elizabeth A. Krupinski, PhD Hans Roehrig, PhD University of Arizona Tucson, AZ.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Impact of next generation display technologies on medical image viewing applications Fahad Zafar, Mina Choi, Joel Wang, Peter Liu, Wei Chung, Aldo Badano.
Advertisements

Image Reconstruction.
Elizabeth A. Krupinski, PhD Arizona Telemedicine Program.
IMAGE QUALITY.
Introduction Radiostereometry (RSA) is well established research method for assessing movement of orthopaedic implants, bone fractures, and.
Digital Radiography.
RAD 354 Chapt. 28 The Digital Image Spatial resolution Contrast resolution Contrast-detail curve Pt. dose considerations.
Physical & Psychophysical Evaluation of a New Digital Specimen Radiography System for Use in Mammography Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD Hans Roehrig, PhD University.
Department of Biomedical Informatics 1 APIII Slide 1 Use of a ‘Mathematical Microscope’ to Understand Radiologists’ Errors in Breast Cancer Detection Claudia.
“International Conference on Clinical PET and Molecular Nuclear Medicine” IAEA - IPET 2007 Bangkok, Thailand 10 to 14 November 2007 C. Suarez, R. Pruzzo,
MAMMO QC – covered in week 8
Lighting for the Classrooms of the Future Electronic classrooms: a new challenge for school lighting guidance Tharinee Ramasoot Steve Fotios School of.
 Image Characteristics  Image Digitization Spatial domain Intensity domain 1.
Computed Tomography III
Influence of Monitor Luminance & Tone Scale on Observers’ Search & Dwell Patterns.
Observer Study of Reconstruction Strategies for Detection of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules Using Hybrid NeoTect SPECT Images Xiaoming Zheng, PhD. 20 October,
Mutual Information as a Measure for Image Quality of Temporally Subtracted Chest Radiographs Samantha Passen Samuel G. Armato III, Ph.D.
Physical & Psychophysical Evaluation of a Flat-Surface CRT Display Monitor vs Traditional Curved- Surface Display Monitor for Use in PACS & Teleradiology.
Digital Audio, Image and Video Hao Jiang Computer Science Department Sept. 6, 2007.
Fluoroscopy: Viewing Systems
IFTSUV: an Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer in the UV Anne Millard, 3 rd year PhD student, directed by P. Lemaire and J.-C. Vial.
Monitor. The Basics Often referred to as a monitor when packaged in a separate case, the display is the most-used output device on a computer. The display.
Seeram Chapter 11: Image Quality
ARRT & Other DIGITAL Terms Defined Supplement to HW assignment
DIGITAL FLUOROSCOPY.
Assessment Of Diagnostic Accuracy Using A Digital Camera For Teledermatology.
IIIT Hyderabad Stroke Detection and Segmentation Presented by: Shashank Mujumdar.
display screens and ergonomics
National Guidance on Standards for PACS Image Display Devices
Topic 2 - Overview of Image Acquisition and Processing Systems DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING Course 3624 Department of Physics and Astronomy Professor Bob Warwick.
1 R2 ImageChecker CT CAD PMA: Clinical Results Nicholas Petrick, Ph.D. Office of Science and Technology Center for Devices and Radiological Health U.S.
Observer Performance Evaluation of a Digital Camera for Acquiring Radiographic Images for Teleradiology Elizabeth A. Krupinski, PhD University of Arizona.
Quality Control Rad T 110.
ECE 448: Lab 6 VGA Display (mini chess game). Video Graphic Array (VGA) Resolution: 640x480 Display: 16 colors (4 bits), 256 colors (8 bits) Refresh Rate:
Image Quality Radiographic Resolution.
 PLASMA DISPLAY MONITOR  RASTOR VS RANDOM SCAN  INTERLACING AND NON- INTERLACING.
Control room High resolution flat screen monitors CCD image intensifiers are easily identified by their shape A modern fluoroscopic suite.
SIGNAL DETECTION IN FIXED PATTERN CHROMATIC NOISE 1 A. J. Ahumada, Jr., 2 W. K. Krebs 1 NASA Ames Research Center; 2 Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
Influence of Enhanced Visualization Processing (EVP) of Chest Images on Workflow.
Color and Resolution Introduction to Digital Imaging.
Factors affecting CT image RAD
Fluoroscopy Q&A Robert L. Metzger, Ph.D..
Human Vision Model to Predict Observer Performance: Detection of Microcalcifications as a Function of Monitor Phosphor Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD Jeffrey.
Digital Radiography & PACS
Image Display Systems Optimizing the Environment Stephen G Davies Consultant Radiologist Royal Glamorgan Hospital.
QIBA CT Volumetrics - Cross-Platform Study (Group 1C) March 18, 2009 Interclinic Comparison of CT Volumetry Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance.
DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESING NASA LUNAR AND PLANETARY EXPLORATION.
DECREASED FLICKER SENSITIVITY WITH A SCANNED LASER DISPLAY. J.P. Kelly 1, H.L. Pryor, E.S. Viirre, T. Furness III. 1 Children's Hospital & Medical Center;
RAD 254 Chapter 27 Digital Fluoroscopy
X-ray SNR in 3 steps. I ∆I. X-ray transmission SNR Review Let N = average number of transmitted x-rays N = N 0 exp [ - ∫  dz ] Emission and transmission.
Fluoroscopy. Real-time imaging Most general-purpose fluoroscopy systems use TV technology, operating at 30 frames/sec May be recorded (barium swallow.
BY: Ben & Nelson. You have a number of decisions to make when purchasing. These few things affect how well your display will perform for you, how much.
Relationship of Image Quality to Decision Accuracy for ARVC/D in MRI Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD Theron Ovitt, MD University of Arizona.
Summary Slide Practical Design Features for a PACS Radiology Department.
Effects of Grayscale Window/Level on Breast Lesion Detectability Jeffrey Johnson, PhD a John Nafziger, PhD a Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD b Hans Roehrig, PhD.
Introduction to Medical Imaging Week 2: X-ray and CT
The Radiologist and Automated Image Analysis Elizabeth A. Krupinski, PhD Department of Radiology University of Arizona.
IMAGE QUALITY. SPATIAL RESOLUTION CONTRAST RESOLUTION NOISE IMAGE ARTIFACTS RADIATION DOSE.
Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity analysis
Computer Graphics Lecture 3 Computer Graphics Hardware
Imaging Characteristics
THE X-RAY UNIT THE BASICS.
Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity analysis
Digital Imaging CHAPTERS 1, 4-7 CARTER.
Fluoroscopic Image Intensifier Image production
Fluoroscopy – Viewing Systems TV Monitors
Fluoroscopic Image Quality Considerations
Fluoroscopic Image Intensifier Image Production
Fluoroscopic Image Quality Considerations
Presentation transcript:

Observer Performance Using Monitors With Different Phosphors Elizabeth A. Krupinski, PhD Hans Roehrig, PhD University of Arizona Tucson, AZ

P104 vs P45 b P104 bigger grain sizebigger grain size fewer grains per pixelfewer grains per pixel two componentstwo components more non-uniformitymore non-uniformity b Lower SNR for P104

Examples P45 Phosphor P104 Phosphor

Max SNR / CRT Pixel Luminance (cd/m 2 ) S N R / C R T - P i x e l P45 Phosphor P 104 Phosphor.

Display Function Command Level (ADU) L u m i n a n c e (cd/m 2 ) P45 P104

Veiling Glare Disk Diameter in # of Pixels P45 P104 Veiling glare ratio

Pixel Emitted intensity # Pixels in Pixel String P i x e l E m i t t e d I n t e n s i t y P104 P45

MTF M TF Frequency (lp/mm) Vertical MTF Horizontal MTF 113 ADU 200 ADU 113 ADU 200 ADU ADU 200 ADU 113 ADU 200 ADU Vertical MTF Horizontal MTF P45P104

Luminance Uniformity

JND Performance F = df = 23 p <

Methods & Materials b 20 chest images 5 lesion free5 lesion free 15 solitary pulmonary nodule15 solitary pulmonary nodule b Image Systems P45 & P104 monitors 1600 x 1200 resolution1600 x 1200 resolution Pixel size = mmPixel size = mm b 6 radiologists as observers

Images - Conventional radiographs 150 mA 125 kVp - CT confirmation - Digitized with VIDAR VXR x 2552 x 16-bits

Viewing Conditions b Eye-position recorded ASL 4000 SU with head-trackerASL 4000 SU with head-tracker < 1 deg accuracy< 1 deg accuracy b Ambient lights off b No time restrictions b ~ 2 weeks between sessions

ROC Az Results b MeanAz : P45 = P104 = P104 = b ANOVA Treatment : F = , p = Treatment : F = , p = Cases : F = , p = Cases : F = , p = Readers : F = , p = Readers : F = , p = No significant interaction effectsNo significant interaction effects

Eye-Position Results

Eye-Position Results* b Mean Viewing Times Overall - P45 = seconds - P104 = seconds * ~ 75% of the data. Future will split out lesion vs lesion-free images & residents vs radiologists * ~ 75% of the data. Future will split out lesion vs lesion-free images & residents vs radiologists

Eye-Position Results b Median Dwell Times x Decision (msec) P45P104 TP =2043<2237 FN = 1528>1411 FP = 1986<1958 TN = 470<513

Eye-Position Results b Mean Time to First “Hit” nodules (msec) P45P104 TP = 312<369 FN = 563<602

Conclusions b Phosphor may not affect diagnostic accuracy b May affect search parameters b Might influence purchase & clinical use choices

Caveats b Detection not classification b Pulmonary nodules only b No image processing (window / level) allowed b Task & stimuli may influence results b Further studies should be done