Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Digital Imaging 6/2013

01-12-2013

Trend of Contrast Detection Threshold with and without Localization

Authors: David L. Leong, Louise Rainford, Tamara Miner Haygood, Gary J. Whitman, William R. Geiser, Beatriz E. Adrada, Lumarie Santiago, Patrick C. Brennan

Published in: Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine | Issue 6/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Published information on contrast detection threshold is based primarily on research using a location-known methodology. In previous work on testing the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) for perceptual linearity, this research group used a location-unknown methodology to more closely reflect clinical practice. A high false-positive rate resulted in a high variance leading to the conclusion that the impact on results of employing a location-known methodology needed to be explored. Fourteen readers reviewed two sets of simulated mammographic background images, one with the location-unknown and one with the location-known methodology. The results of the reader study were analyzed using Reader Operating Characteristic (ROC) methodology and a paired t test. Contrast detection threshold was analyzed using contingency tables. No statistically significant difference was found in GSDF testing, but a highly statistical significant difference (p value <0.0001) was seen in the ROC (AUC) curve between the location-unknown and the location-known methodologies. Location-known methodology not only improved the power of the GSDF test but also affected the contrast detection threshold which changed from +3 when the location was unknown to +2 gray levels for the location-known images. The selection of location known versus unknown in experimental design must be carefully considered to ensure that the conclusions of the experiment reflect the study’s objectives.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hemminger BM, Johnston RE, Rolland JP, Muller KE: Introduction to perceptual linearization of video display systems for medical image presentation. J Digit Imaging 8:21–34, 1995PubMedCrossRef Hemminger BM, Johnston RE, Rolland JP, Muller KE: Introduction to perceptual linearization of video display systems for medical image presentation. J Digit Imaging 8:21–34, 1995PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference American College of Radiology. Practice Guideline for Digital Radiography, Reston, VA, 2007 American College of Radiology. Practice Guideline for Digital Radiography, Reston, VA, 2007
3.
go back to reference Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, Flynn MJ, Hemminger B, Hangiandreou N, Johnson J, Moxley-Stevens DM, Pavlicek W, Roehrig H, Rutz L, Shepard J, Uzenoff RA, Wang J, Willis CE: Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225, 2005PubMedCrossRef Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, Flynn MJ, Hemminger B, Hangiandreou N, Johnson J, Moxley-Stevens DM, Pavlicek W, Roehrig H, Rutz L, Shepard J, Uzenoff RA, Wang J, Willis CE: Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 32:1205–1225, 2005PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference IHE Technical Framework Volume I Integration Profiles, Chicago, IL, 2007 IHE Technical Framework Volume I Integration Profiles, Chicago, IL, 2007
5.
go back to reference Kroon H: Overall x-ray system simulation model developed for system design and image quality versus patient dose optimization. SPIE, San Diego, California, USA, 2003 Kroon H: Overall x-ray system simulation model developed for system design and image quality versus patient dose optimization. SPIE, San Diego, California, USA, 2003
6.
go back to reference Barten PGJ: Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, WA, 1999CrossRef Barten PGJ: Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. SPIE Optical Engineering Press, Bellingham, WA, 1999CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF: Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419–437, 2001PubMedCrossRef Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF: Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 28:419–437, 2001PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Wang J, Xu J, Baladandayuthapani V: Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS. Med Phys 36:3682–3692, 2009PubMedCrossRef Wang J, Xu J, Baladandayuthapani V: Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS. Med Phys 36:3682–3692, 2009PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Burgess AE, Jacobson F, Judy P: Mass discrimination in mammography: experiments using hybrid images. Acad Radiol 10:1247–1256, 2003PubMedCrossRef Burgess AE, Jacobson F, Judy P: Mass discrimination in mammography: experiments using hybrid images. Acad Radiol 10:1247–1256, 2003PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Tchou P, Flynn MJ, Peterson E: 2AFC assessment of contrast threshold for a standardized target using a monochrome LCD monitor. Proc. Medical Imaging 2004: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment: San Diego, CA, USA, 344–352 Tchou P, Flynn MJ, Peterson E: 2AFC assessment of contrast threshold for a standardized target using a monochrome LCD monitor. Proc. Medical Imaging 2004: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment: San Diego, CA, USA, 344–352
11.
go back to reference Kundel HL: Reader error, object recognition, and visual search San Diego. SPIE, California, USA, 2004 Kundel HL: Reader error, object recognition, and visual search San Diego. SPIE, California, USA, 2004
12.
go back to reference Leong DL, Haygood TM, Whitman GJ, Tchou PM, Geiser WR, Carkaci S, Rainford L, Brennan PC: Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds. J Digit Imaging 25:662–669, 2012PubMedCrossRef Leong DL, Haygood TM, Whitman GJ, Tchou PM, Geiser WR, Carkaci S, Rainford L, Brennan PC: Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds. J Digit Imaging 25:662–669, 2012PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference National Electrical Manufacturers Association: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, 2008 National Electrical Manufacturers Association: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, 2008
14.
go back to reference Bochud F, Abbey C, Eckstein M: Statistical texture synthesis of mammographic images with super-blob lumpy backgrounds. Opt Express 4:33–42, 1999PubMedCrossRef Bochud F, Abbey C, Eckstein M: Statistical texture synthesis of mammographic images with super-blob lumpy backgrounds. Opt Express 4:33–42, 1999PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Borjesson S, Hakansson M, Bath M, Kheddache S, Svensson S, Tingberg A, Grahn A, Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Mattsson S, Mansson LG: A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:45–52, 2005PubMedCrossRef Borjesson S, Hakansson M, Bath M, Kheddache S, Svensson S, Tingberg A, Grahn A, Ruschin M, Hemdal B, Mattsson S, Mansson LG: A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:45–52, 2005PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV, Chen YF, Donaghy BA: Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 5:591–602, 1998PubMedCrossRef Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Lenth RV, Chen YF, Donaghy BA: Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design. Acad Radiol 5:591–602, 1998PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731, 1992 Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol 27:723–731, 1992
18.
go back to reference Hillis SL: A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619, 2007PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL: A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619, 2007PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. Acad Radiol 11:1260–1273, 2004PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. Acad Radiol 11:1260–1273, 2004PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. Acad Radiol 12:1534–1541, 2005PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. Acad Radiol 12:1534–1541, 2005PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647–661, 2008PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647–661, 2008PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS: A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 24:1579–1607, 2005PubMedCrossRef Hillis SL, Obuchowski NA, Schartz KM, Berbaum KS: A comparison of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz and Obuchowski-Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data. Stat Med 24:1579–1607, 2005PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Friendly M: Mosaic Displays for Multi-Way Contingency Tables. J Amer Statist Assoc 89:190–200, 1994CrossRef Friendly M: Mosaic Displays for Multi-Way Contingency Tables. J Amer Statist Assoc 89:190–200, 1994CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Carmody D: Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. Invest Radiol 13:175–181, 1978PubMedCrossRef Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Carmody D: Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. Invest Radiol 13:175–181, 1978PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Trend of Contrast Detection Threshold with and without Localization
Authors
David L. Leong
Louise Rainford
Tamara Miner Haygood
Gary J. Whitman
William R. Geiser
Beatriz E. Adrada
Lumarie Santiago
Patrick C. Brennan
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine / Issue 6/2013
Print ISSN: 2948-2925
Electronic ISSN: 2948-2933
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-013-9589-4

Other articles of this Issue 6/2013

Journal of Digital Imaging 6/2013 Go to the issue