Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds
- 147 Downloads
While previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the detection threshold and whether the median background intensity shift has been minimized by GSDF remains unknown. We set out to determine if the median background affected the detection of a low-contrast object in a clustered lumpy background, which simulated a mammography image, and to define the contrast detection threshold for these complex images. Clustered lumpy background images were created of different median intensities and disks of varying contrasts were inserted. A reader study was performed with 17 readers of varying skill level who scored with a five-point confidence scale whether a disk was present. The results were analyzed using reader operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. Contingency tables were used to determine the contrast detection threshold. No statistically significant difference was seen in the area under the ROC curve across all of the backgrounds. Contrast detection fell below 50 % between +3 and +2 gray levels. Our work supports the conclusion that Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine GSDF calibrated monitors do perceptually linearize detection performance across shifts in median background intensity. The contrast detection threshold was determined to be +3 gray levels above the background for an object of 1° visual angle.
KeywordsImage perception ROC-based analysis Digital display Contrast threshold GSDF
The authors would like to acknowledge all of the readers who participated in this study for their support of this research.
- 1.National Electrical Manufacturers Association: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, 2008Google Scholar
- 2.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
- 3.American College of Radiology: Practice guideline for digital radiography. Reston: 2007Google Scholar
- 4.IHE Technical Framework volume I Integration profiles. Chicago: 2007Google Scholar
- 17.Barten PGJ: Formula for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye. SPIE, San Jose, 2004Google Scholar
- 27.Medical Image Perception Laboratory. Available at http://perception.radiology.uiowa.edu/. Accessed July 27, 2010.