Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 2/2011

01-02-2011

A validated subjective rating of display quality: the Maryland Visual Comfort Scale

Authors: F. Jacob Seagull, Erica Sutton, Tommy Lee, Carlos Godinez, Gyusung Lee, Adrian Park

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive surgery requires high-quality imaging to provide effective visual displays to surgeons. Whereas objective measures—pixels, resolution, display size, contrast ratio—are used to compare imaging systems, there are no tools for assessing the perceptual impact of these physical measures. We developed the “Maryland Visual Comfort Scale” (MVCS) to measure perceptual qualities in relation to an imaging system. We theorize that what the surgeon perceives as a high-quality image can be summarized by a scoring of seven characteristics related to human perception, and that image quality is not homogenous across a video display such that object location impacts perception and display quality.

Method

We created a rating scale for seven dimensions of display characteristics (contrast, detail, brightness, lighting uniformity, focus uniformity, color, sharpness). For validation, 30 participants viewed test patterns and manipulated physiologic images, rating the image quality for all seven dimensions as well as giving an overall rating. Image ratings for contrast and detail dimensions were assessed across five locations on the video display. For ratings, two imaging systems were used, differing primarily in the 10-mm zero-degree scope’s quality: a standard scope and one taken from service for quality degradation.

Results

The rating scale was sensitive to differences in scope quality for all seven items in the MVCS (all p values < 0.01). Significant differences existed between quality ratings at central and peripheral locations (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

This seven-item rating scale for assessing visual comfort is reliable and sensitive to scope quality differences. The scale is sensitive to degradation of image quality at video display edges. These seven dimensions of display characteristics can be refined to create a psychometric to serve as a composite of perceptual quality in laparoscopy.
Literature
1.
3.
go back to reference Brown SI, White C, Wipat K, Hanna GB, Frank TG, Cuschieri A (2004) Characterizing the “gold standard” image for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:1192–1195CrossRefPubMed Brown SI, White C, Wipat K, Hanna GB, Frank TG, Cuschieri A (2004) Characterizing the “gold standard” image for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 18:1192–1195CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Cuschieri A (2006) Epistemology of visual imaging in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 20(Suppl 2):S419–S424CrossRefPubMed Cuschieri A (2006) Epistemology of visual imaging in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 20(Suppl 2):S419–S424CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Kim YJ, Luo MR, Choe W, Kim HS, Park SO, Baek Y, Rhodes P, Lee S, Kim CY (2008) Factors affecting the psychophysical image quality evaluation of mobile phone displays: the case of transmissive liquid-crystal displays. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 25:2215–2222CrossRefPubMed Kim YJ, Luo MR, Choe W, Kim HS, Park SO, Baek Y, Rhodes P, Lee S, Kim CY (2008) Factors affecting the psychophysical image quality evaluation of mobile phone displays: the case of transmissive liquid-crystal displays. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 25:2215–2222CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Oh J, Hwang S, Lee J, Tavanapong W, Wong J, de Groen PC (2007) Informative frame classification for endoscopy video. Med Image Anal 11:110–127CrossRefPubMed Oh J, Hwang S, Lee J, Tavanapong W, Wong J, de Groen PC (2007) Informative frame classification for endoscopy video. Med Image Anal 11:110–127CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Medina M (1997) Image rotation and reversal–major obstacles in learning intracorporeal suturing and knot-tying. JSLS 1:331–336. Erratum: JSLS 2001;5:98 Medina M (1997) Image rotation and reversal–major obstacles in learning intracorporeal suturing and knot-tying. JSLS 1:331–336. Erratum: JSLS 2001;5:98
8.
go back to reference Kundel HL (1990) Visual cues in the interpretation of medical images. J Clin Neurophysiol 7:472–483CrossRefPubMed Kundel HL (1990) Visual cues in the interpretation of medical images. J Clin Neurophysiol 7:472–483CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Benner PA, Tanner CA, Chesla CA (1996) Proficiency: a transition to expertise. In: Benner PA, Tanner CA, Chesla CA (eds) Expertise in nursing practice. Springer, New York, pp 114–141 Benner PA, Tanner CA, Chesla CA (1996) Proficiency: a transition to expertise. In: Benner PA, Tanner CA, Chesla CA (eds) Expertise in nursing practice. Springer, New York, pp 114–141
10.
go back to reference Fitts PM, Posner MI (1967) Human performance. Brock-Cole, Belmont Fitts PM, Posner MI (1967) Human performance. Brock-Cole, Belmont
11.
go back to reference Roth EM, Lin L, Kerch S, Kenney SJ, Sugibayashi N (2001) Designing a first-of-a-kind group view display for team decision making: a case study. In: Salas E, Klein G (eds) Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 113–136 Roth EM, Lin L, Kerch S, Kenney SJ, Sugibayashi N (2001) Designing a first-of-a-kind group view display for team decision making: a case study. In: Salas E, Klein G (eds) Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 113–136
Metadata
Title
A validated subjective rating of display quality: the Maryland Visual Comfort Scale
Authors
F. Jacob Seagull
Erica Sutton
Tommy Lee
Carlos Godinez
Gyusung Lee
Adrian Park
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1220-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Surgical Endoscopy 2/2011 Go to the issue