Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 11, Supplement 1, pp 180–186 | Cite as

Quantitative evaluation of overall electronic display quality

  • Nicholas J. Hangiandreou
  • Kenneth A. Fetterly
  • Scott N. Bernatz
  • Laurie J. Cesar
  • Debra S. Groth
  • Joel P. Felmlee
Sessions Session XII Image Display Quality

Conclusions

This study indicates that contrast-detail data should be very helpful in providing quantitative measurements of overall electronic display quality. The method would be suitable for new equipment selection, acceptance testing, and quality control. The recommended protocol would only involve observer data obtained using test images with mid-range background pixed values. Improvements to the current linear curve fit may also provide increased levels of measurement precision and sensitivity. To put the measurements in proper context, MTC measurements of a group of displays currently in use and deemed acceptable for the clinical display) should be obtained by a group of observers, if possible.

When making quantitative recommendations regarding equipment selection, or display configuration (eg, maximum display luminance or ambient room lighting levels), a group of observers should be used, since the decisions made will presumably affect a large number of radiologists, technologists or clinical physicians using the display workstations. With a group of five observers, and using the group paired difference analysis technique, measurement precision will be 9.0%, and sensitivity to MTC changes will be 11.1%. Each set of raw data for a measurement of MTC can be collected and analyzed for each observer in approximately 30 minutes, so data sufficient for a comparison of two devices could be collected and analyzed within an hour.

When making measurements for equipment acceptance testing or routine QC measurements (eg, on a quarterly or twice-yearly basis), measurements from a single observer should suffice since the goal is an assessment of the relative performance of an individual device. Precision of the single observer MTC measurements will be 6.8%, and sensitivity will be 15.2%. Measurements made over a period of time should have a reproducibility of about 5%.

Keywords

Test Image Dark Background Monitor Condition Threshold Contrast Maximum Luminance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen G, DiBianca FA: The use of contrast-detail-dose evaluation of image quality in a computed tomographic scanner. J Comput Assist Tomogr 3:189–195, 1979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Constable RT, Henkelman RM: Contrast, resolution and detectability in MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 15:297–303, 1991CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dobbins JT, Rice JJ, Beam CA, Ravin CE: Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography. Radiology 183:179–187, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Yu T: Observer performance comparison of digital radiographic systems for stereotactic breast needle biopsy. Acta Radiol 2:116–122Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hangiandreou NJ, King BF, Swensen AR, Webbles WW, Jorgenson LL: Picture archive and communication system implementation in a community medicine practice. J Dig Imaging 10 (suppl 1):36–37, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rose A: The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. J Soc Opt Am 38:196–208, 1948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blume H, Members of ACR/NEMA Working Group XI: The ACR/NEMA proposal for a grey-scale display function standard. Proc SPIE 2702:344–360, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas J. Hangiandreou
    • 1
  • Kenneth A. Fetterly
    • 1
  • Scott N. Bernatz
    • 1
  • Laurie J. Cesar
    • 1
  • Debra S. Groth
    • 1
  • Joel P. Felmlee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyMayo Clinic and FoundationRochester

Personalised recommendations