Trend of Contrast Detection Threshold with and without Localization
- 147 Downloads
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.
Key wordsImage perception contrast threshold GSDF ROC SKE LKE
The authors would like to thank the participants who devoted two reading sessions in support of this research.
- 2.American College of Radiology. Practice Guideline for Digital Radiography, Reston, VA, 2007Google Scholar
- 3.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
- 4.IHE Technical Framework Volume I Integration Profiles, Chicago, IL, 2007Google Scholar
- 5.Kroon H: Overall x-ray system simulation model developed for system design and image quality versus patient dose optimization. SPIE, San Diego, California, USA, 2003Google Scholar
- 10.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, 344–352Google Scholar
- 11.Kundel HL: Reader error, object recognition, and visual search San Diego. SPIE, California, USA, 2004Google Scholar
- 13.National Electrical Manufacturers Association: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, 2008Google Scholar
- 17.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, 1992Google Scholar
- 23.Medical Image Perception Laboratory [Internet]. Available at http://perception.radiology.uiowa.edu/. Accessed July 27, 2010 2010.