Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Perceptual Evaluation of JPEG 2000 Image Compression for Digital Mammography: Contrast-Detail Characteristics

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this investigation the effect of JPEG 2000 compression on the contrast-detail (CD) characteristics of digital mammography images was studied using an alternative forced choice (AFC) technique. Images of a contrast-detail phantom, acquired using a clinical full-field digital mammography system, were compressed using a commercially available software product (JPEG 2000). Data compression was achieved at ratios of 1:1, 10:1, 20:1, and 30:1 and the images were reviewed by seven observers on a high-resolution display. Psychophysical detection characteristics were first computed by fitting perception data using a maximum-likelihood technique from which CD curves were derived at 50%, 62.5%, and 75% threshold levels. Statistical analysis indicated no significant difference in the perception of mean disk thickness up to 20:1 compression except for disk diameter of 1 mm. All other compression combinations exhibited significant degradation in CD characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. JM Lewin ER Hendrick CJ D’Orsil et al. (2001) ArticleTitleComparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 218 873–880 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3gs1Citw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11230669

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. S Vedantham A Karellas S Suryanarayanan et al. (2000) ArticleTitleBreast imaging using an amorphous silicon-based full-field digital mammography system: stability of a clinical prototype. J Digit Imaging 13 191–199 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3Mzgtl2ltw%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. LT Niklason BT Christian LE Niklason et al. (1997) ArticleTitleDigital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 205 399–406 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FhvFCgsQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9356620

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. S Suryanarayanan A Karellas S Vedantham et al. (2000) ArticleTitleComparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. Acad Radiol 7 1085–1097 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3gtFSrsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11131053

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. JM Boone TR Nelson K Lindfors et al. (2001) ArticleTitleDedicated breast CT: radiation dose and image quality evaluation. Radiology 221 657–667 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MnntlOrtQ%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11719660

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. B Chen R Ning (2002) ArticleTitleCone-beam volume CT breast imaging: feasibility study. Med Phys 29 755–770 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.1461843 Occurrence Handle12033572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. H Chan SB Lo LT Niklason et al. (1996) ArticleTitleImage compression in digital mammography: effects on computerized detection of subtle microcalcifications. Med Phys 23 1325–1336 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.597871 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiD38nosFU%3D Occurrence Handle8873029

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. K Egashira H Nakata H Watanabe et al. (1998) ArticleTitleClinical evaluation of irreversible data compression for computed radiography of the chest. J Digit Imaging 11 176–181 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FmsVGitA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9848050

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. DH Foos E Muka RM Slone et al. (2000) ArticleTitleJPEG 2000 compression for medical imagery. Medical Imaging 2000: PACS Design and Evaluation. Eng Clin Issues 3980 85–96 Occurrence Handle10.1117/12.386390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. WF Good JH Sumkin M Ganott et al. (2000) ArticleTitleDetection of masses and clustered microcalcifications on data compressed mammograms: an observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgerol 175 1573–1576 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M%2FnsFGguw%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Information available at http://www.jpeg.org/JPEG2000.html, official homepage of JPEG 2000

  12. PW Jones M Rabbani (2002) JPEG compression in medical imaging. Y Kim SC Horii (Eds) Handbook of Medical Imaging, vol 3: Displays and PACS. SPIE Press Washington, DC 221–275

    Google Scholar 

  13. V Savcenko BJ Erickson KR Persons et al. (2000) ArticleTitleAn evaluation of JPEG and JPEG 2000 irreversible compression algorithms applied to neurologic computed tomography and magnetic resonance images. Joint Photographic Experts Group. J Digit Imaging 13 IssueID2 Suppl 1 183–185 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvotVOgtA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10847394

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. MM Sung HJ Kim SK Yoo et al. (2002) ArticleTitleClinical evaluation of compression ratios using JPEG2000 on computed radiography chest images. J Digit Imaging 15 78–83 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s10278-002-0007-6 Occurrence Handle12297972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. MD Harpen (1998) ArticleTitleAn introduction to wavelet theory and application for the radiological physicist. Med Phys 25 1985–1993 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.598387 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2FhslSruw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9800707

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. H Liu LL Fajardo JR Barrett et al. (1997) ArticleTitleContrast-detail detectability analysis: comparison of a digital spot mammography system and an analog screen-film mammography system. Acad Radiol 4 197–203 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByiB3sbgvVI%3D Occurrence Handle9084777

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. S Suryanarayanan A Karellas S Vedantham et al. (2002) ArticleTitleFlat-panel digital mammography system contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy/images. Radiology 225 801–807 Occurrence Handle12461264

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. J Wang J Anderson T Lane et al. (2000) ArticleTitleContrast-detail characteristic evaluations of several display devices. J Digit Imaging 13 IssueID2 Suppl l 162–167 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvotVOgsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10847389

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. J Wang S Langer (1997) ArticleTitleA brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging 10 158–168 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1c%2FmtFGgtQ%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. WJH Veldkamp MAO Thijssen N Karssemeijer (2003) ArticleTitleThe value of scatter removal by a grid in full field digital mammography. Med Phys 30 1712–1718 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.1584044 Occurrence Handle12906188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. R Aufrichtig (1999) ArticleTitleComparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Med Phys 26 1349–1358 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.598630 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1MzmtFyqsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle10435537

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. R Aufrichtig P Xue (2000) ArticleTitleDose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon x-ray detector for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 45 2653–2669 Occurrence Handle10.1088/0031-9155/45/9/316 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvlt1GrsA%3D%3D Occurrence Handle11008963

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. K Ohara K Doi CE Metz et al. (1989) ArticleTitleInvestigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 13. Effect of simple structured noise on the detectability of simulated stenotic lesions. Med Phys 16 14–21 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.596391 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiaC2MbgtFw%3D Occurrence Handle2646515

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. DP Chakraborty (1989) ArticleTitleMaximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data. Med Phys 16 561–568 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiaA28vltVQ%3D Occurrence Handle2770630

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. DP Chakraborty MP Eckert (1995) ArticleTitleQuantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images. Med Phys 22 133–143 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.597463 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BymD3MrmtFI%3D Occurrence Handle7565344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. MP Eckstein CK Abbey JL Bartoff (2000) ArticleTitleModel observer optimization of JPEG image compression. SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Image Percept Performance 3981 106–115 Occurrence Handle10.1117/12.383096

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant R01-CA88792 and RO1-EB002123 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), respectively. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCI, NIBIB, or the NIH. The authors thank Mr. Mike Dubose and Jeff Stehouwer, Ph.D, for participating as observers in this study. The authors also thank Mr. Kirk A. Easley for providing assistance with statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, 1364 Clifton Rd. NE, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

    Sankararaman Suryanarayanan, Andrew Karellas Ph.D., Srinivasan Vedantham, Sandra M. Waldrop & Carl J. D’Orsi

Authors
  1. Sankararaman Suryanarayanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Karellas Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Srinivasan Vedantham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sandra M. Waldrop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carl J. D’Orsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Karellas Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suryanarayanan, S., Karellas, A., Vedantham, S. et al. A Perceptual Evaluation of JPEG 2000 Image Compression for Digital Mammography: Contrast-Detail Characteristics. J Digit Imaging 17, 64–70 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-003-1728-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-003-1728-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation