Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 520–526 | Cite as

The Effects of Ambient Lighting in Chest Radiology Reading Rooms

  • Benjamin J. Pollard
  • Ehsan SameiEmail author
  • Amarpreet S. Chawla
  • Craig Beam
  • Laura E. Heyneman
  • Lynne M. Hurwitz Koweek
  • Santiago Martinez-Jimenez
  • Lacey Washington
  • Noriyuki Hashimoto
  • H. Page McAdams
Article

Abstract

Under typical dark chest radiography reading room conditions, a radiologist’s pupils contract and dilate as their visual focus intermittently shifts between the high luminance monitor and the darker background wall, resulting in increased visual fatigue and degradation of diagnostic performance. A controlled increase of ambient lighting may minimize these visual adjustments and potentially improve comfort and accuracy. This study was designed to determine the effect of a controlled increase of ambient lighting on chest radiologist nodule detection performance. Four chest radiologists read 100 radiographs (50 normal and 50 containing a subtle nodule) under low (E = 1 lx) and elevated (E = 50 lx) ambient lighting levels on a DICOM-calibrated, medical-grade liquid crystal display. Radiologists were asked to identify nodule locations and rate their detection confidence. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of radiologist results was performed and area under ROC curve (AUC) values calculated for each ambient lighting level. Additionally, radiologist selection times under both illuminance conditions were determined. Average AUC values did not significantly differ (p > 0.05) between ambient lighting levels (estimated mean difference = −0.03; 95% CI, (−0.08, 0.03)). Average selection times decreased or remained constant with increased illuminance. The most considerable decreases occurred for false positive identification times (35.4 ± 18.8 to 26.2 ± 14.9 s) and true positive identification times (29.7 ± 18.3 to 24.5 ± 15.5 s). No performance differences were statistically significant. Study findings suggest that a controlled increase of ambient lighting within darkly lit chest radiology reading rooms, to a level more suitable for performance of common radiological tasks, does not appear to have a statistically significant effect on nodule detection performance.

Keywords

Chest radiographs Image perception Visual perception 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Michael Flynn for the use of his software. Additionally, the authors are grateful to Dr. Robert Saunders, Xiang Li, Takashi Matsui, and Brian Cote for their thoughtful questions and considerable assistance.

References

  1. 1.
    Alter AJ, Kargas GA, Kargas SA, Cameron JR, McDermott JC: The influence of ambient and viewbox light upon visual detection of low-contrast targets in a radiograph. Investig Radiol 17:402–405, 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reiner BI, Siegel EL, Rostenberg B: Redesigning the PACS reading room: Optimizing monitor and room lighting. Proc SPIE 3662:276–280, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siegel E, Reiner B: Radiology reading room design: The next generation. Appl Radiol 31:11–16, 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goo JM, Choi J-Y, Im J-G, Lee HJ, Chung MJ, Han D, Park SH, Kim JH, Nam S-H: Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology 232:762–766, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chawla AS, Samei E: Ambient illumination revisited: A new adaptation-based approach for optimizing medical imaging reading environments. Med Phys 34:81–90, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Fratt “Redesigning the Reading Room,” http://www.healthimaging.com/content/view/1389/68/, (April 2, 2007)
  7. 7.
    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, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brennan PC, McEntee M, Evanoff M, Phillips P, O’Connor WT, Manning DJ: Ambient lighting: Effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. Am J Roentgenol 188:W177–W180, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pollard BJ, Chawla AS, Hashimoto N, Delong D, Samei E: Object detectability at increased ambient lighting conditions. Med Phys 35:2204–2213, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Floyd Jr, CE, Baydush AH, Lo JY, Bowsher JE, Ravin CE: Bayesian restoration of chest radiographs. Scatter compensation with improved signal-to-noise ratio. Investig Radiol 29:904–910, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drayer JA, Vittitoe NF, Vargas-Voracek R, Baydush AH, Ravin CE, Floyd Jr, CE: Characteristics of regions suspicious for pulmonary nodules at chest radiography. Acad Radiol 5:613–619, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. J. Flynn, “Tshow 1.3” (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chawla AS, Pollard B, Samei E, Hashimoto N: Effect of increased ambient lighting on detectability: A psychophysical study. Proc SPIE 6516:651617–651629, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Samei E: AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: Technological and psychophysical considerations for digital mammographic displays. Radiographics 25:491–501, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    NEMA “Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), Part 14 Grayscale Standard Display Function PS 3.1–2006,” http://medical.nema.org, (March 20, 2008)
  16. 16.
    Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Investig Radiol 27:723–731, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hillis SL, Berbaum KS: Power estimation for the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz method. Acad Radiol 11:1260–1273, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hillis SL, Berbaum KS, Metz CE: Recent developments in the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. Acad Radiol 15:647–661, 2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hillis SL: A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis. Stat Med 26:596–619, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    C. Metz, “ROCKIT 0.9B” (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. S.A.S. Institute, JMP 7.0 (Cary, 2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chawla AS, Samei E: A method for reduction of eye fatigue by optimizing the ambient light conditions in radiology reading rooms. Proc SPIE 6145:614503–614512, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin J. Pollard
    • 1
  • Ehsan Samei
    • 2
    Email author
  • Amarpreet S. Chawla
    • 3
  • Craig Beam
    • 4
  • Laura E. Heyneman
    • 5
  • Lynne M. Hurwitz Koweek
    • 6
  • Santiago Martinez-Jimenez
    • 5
  • Lacey Washington
    • 5
  • Noriyuki Hashimoto
    • 7
  • H. Page McAdams
    • 6
  1. 1.Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Medical Physics Graduate ProgramDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Departments of Radiology, Physics, and Biomedical Engineering, Medical Physics Graduate ProgramDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Department of Radiation OncologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Carl E. Ravin Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Department of RadiologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  7. 7.Eizo Nanao Technologies, Inc.CypressUSA

Personalised recommendations