Assessment of the influence of display veiling glare on observer and model performance

被引:0
|
作者
Krupinski, Elizabeth A. [1 ]
Lubin, Jeffrey [2 ]
Roehrig, Hans [1 ]
Johnson, Jeffrey [3 ]
Nafziger, John [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Arizona, Dept Radiol, 1609 N Warren Ave, Tucson, AZ 85724 USA
[2] Sarnoff Corp, Princeton, NJ 80540 USA
[3] Siemens Corp Res, Princeton, NJ 80540 USA
来源
MEDICAL IMAGING 2006: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT | 2006年 / 6146卷
关键词
veiling glare; physical characterization; observer performance;
D O I
10.1117/12.650677
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
We evaluated human observer and model (JNDmetrix) performance to assess whether the veiling glare of a digital display influences performance in softcopy interpretation of mammographic images. 160 mammographic images, half with a single mass, were processed to simulate four levels of veiling glare: none, comparable to a typical cathode ray tube (CRT) display, double a CRT and quadruple a CRT. Six radiologist observers were shown the images in a randomized presentation order on a liquid crystal display (LCD) that had relatively no veiling glare. The JNDmetrix human visual system model also analyzed the images. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) techniques showed that performance declined with increasing veiling glare (F = 6.884, p = 0.0035). Quadruple veiling glare yielded significantly lower performance than the lower veiling glare levels. The JNDmetrix model did not predict a reduction in performance with changes in veiling glare, and correlation with the human observer data was modest (0.588). Display veiling glare may influence observer performance, but only at very high levels.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Use of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images
    Krupinski, EA
    Johnson, J
    Roehrig, H
    Nafziger, J
    Fan, JH
    Lubin, J
    JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 2004, 17 (04) : 258 - 263
  • [32] The influence of observer's voluntary action on perception of kinetic depth display
    Nakamura, Daishi
    Ishii, Masahiro
    I-PERCEPTION, 2011, 2 (04): : 396 - 396
  • [33] Display performance assessment and certification at NIDL
    Enstrom, RE
    Grote, MD
    Brill, MH
    COCKPIT DISPLAYS VII: DISPLAYS FOR DEFENSE APPLICATIONS, 2000, 4022 : 358 - 368
  • [34] Analysis of observer variability in the assessment of FLIR performance
    Mazz, JP
    INFRARED IMAGING SYSTEMS: DESIGN, ANALYSIS, MODELING, AND TESTING VII, 1996, 2743 : 2 - 11
  • [35] Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
    Abbey, Craig K.
    Mello-Thoms, Claudia
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2013: IMAGE PERCEPTION, OBSERVER PERFORMANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, 2013, 8673
  • [36] On Observer Performance for an Electrochemical Supercapacitor Model
    Drummond, Ross
    Duncan, Stephen R.
    2015 IEEE CONFERENCE ON CONTROL AND APPLICATIONS (CCA 2015), 2015, : 1260 - 1265
  • [37] INFLUENCE OF OBSERVER PERFORMANCE IN RADIOGRAPHIC CARIES DIAGNOSIS
    GRONDAHL, HG
    SWEDISH DENTAL JOURNAL, 1979, 3 (04) : 101 - 107
  • [38] Assessment of Ultrasound Monitor Image Display Performance
    Burton, C.
    Kim, D.
    Kim, D.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2019, 46 (06) : E133 - E133
  • [39] ASSESSMENT OF ULTRASOUND MONITOR IMAGE DISPLAY PERFORMANCE
    Moore, Sally C.
    Munnings, Craig R.
    Brettle, David S.
    Evans, J. Anthony
    ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2011, 37 (06): : 971 - 979
  • [40] Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations
    Thompson, D. P.
    Koller, C. J.
    Eatough, J. P.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2007, 80 (952): : 256 - 260