1. The impact of simulated motion blur on lesion detection performance in Full Field Digital Mammography
Ahmed K. Abdullah1,2, John Thompson2, Claire Mercer2, Rob Aspin2,
Judith Kelly3, Peter Hogg2
1University of Diyala, Iraq; 2University of Salford, United Kingdom; 3Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, UK

2. Background and Purpose
Motion blur is a known phenomenon in Full Field Digital Mammography (FFDM)
The impact on cancer detection performance is unknown
This is the first study to investigate FFDM breast cancer detection performance with different magnitudes of simulated motion blur

3. Method – Simulated Motion Blur
Mathematical simulation of motion blur applied globally to the image1
Cancer detection evaluated under three conditions
0 mm simulated blurring (no blurring applied)
0.7 mm simulated blurring
1.5 mm simulated blurring
1. Ma WK, Aspin R, Kelly J, Millington S, Hogg P. What is the minimum amount of simulated breast movement required for visual detection of blurring? An exploratory investigation. Br J Radiol Aug;88(1052):

4. Example - Microcalcification
FFDM CC view
Simulated Motion Blur Applied
0 mm
0.7 mm
1.5 mm
Example - Microcalcification

5. Method – Observer Study
Free-response receiver operating characteristic study
Statistic power ensured1
7 observers (mean 15±5 years’ FFDM reporting experience)
248 cases from the PROCAS dataset2
62 malignant masses
62 malignant micro-calcifications
124 normal cases
wJAFROC analysis performed; test alpha set at 0.05
1. Obuchowski N. Sample size tables for receiver operating characteristic studies. Am J Roentgenol :603–8. Available from:
2. A study looking at breast cancer risk during screening (PROCAS), Accessed

6. Results - Overall
Statistically significant difference for the detection of:
Masses F(2,49) = P=0.0084
Microcalcifications: F(2,49) = P<0.0001

7. Results - Masses |----------------- P = 0.012 -----------------||
P = 0.004 |
P = 0.641

8. Results - Microcalcifications|
P < 0.001 | | |
P = 0.004

9. Conclusion
Simulated motion blur has a negative and statistically significant impact on cancer detection performance
This is likely to have implications for clinical practice
TAKE HOME MESSAGE:
If you can see blur then consider repeating the image because you might miss a cancer

10. Future Work
Assess the impact of double reporting on cancer detection in the presence of simulated motion blur
Assess the impact of regional simulated motion blur on cancer detection performance