Advertisement

Evaluation of Human Contrast Sensitivity Functions Used in the Nonprewhitening Model Observer with Eye Filter

  • Ramona W. Bouwman
  • Ruben E. van Engen
  • David R. Dance
  • Kenneth C. Young
  • Wouter J. H. Veldkamp
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8539)

Abstract

Model observers which can serve as surrogates for human observers could be valuable for the assessment of image quality. For this purpose, a good correlation between human and model observer is a prerequisite. The nonprewhitening model observer with eye filter (NPWE) is an example of such a model observer. The eye filter is a mathematical approximation of the human contrast sensitivity function (CSF) and is included to correct for the response of the human eye. In the literature several approximations of the human CSF were found. In this study the relation between human and NPWE observer performance using seven eye filters is evaluated in two-alternative-forced-choice (2-AFC) detection experiments involving disks of varying diameter and signal energy and two background types. The results show that the shape of the CSF has an impact on the correlation between human and model observer. The inclusion of a CSF may indeed improve the relation between human and model observer. However, we did not find an eye filter which is optimal in both backgrounds.

Keywords

model observers image quality NPWE eye filter contrast sensitivity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rolland, J.P., Barrett, H.H.: Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9(5), 58–649 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burgess, A.E.: Statistically defined backgrounds: Performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A Opt. Image Sci. Vis. 11(4), 42–1237 (1994)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castella, C., et al.: Mammographic texture synthesis: second-generation clustered lumpy backgrounds using a genetic algorithm. Optics Express 16(11), 7595–7607 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burgess, A.E., Jacobson, F.L., Judy, P.F.: Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med. Phys. 28(4), 37–419 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burgess, A.E., Li, X., Abbey, C.K.: Visual signal detectability with two noise components: Anomalous masking effects. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A Opt. Image Sci. Vis. 14(9), 42–2420 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barten, P.G.J.: Evaluation of subjective image quality with the square-root integral method. Journal of the Optical Society of America a Optics Image Science and Vision 7(10), 2024–2031 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bochud, F.O., Abbey, C.K., Eckstein, M.P.: Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds. Journal of the Optical Society of America a Optics Image Science and Vision 17(2), 193–205 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borasi, G., et al.: Contrast-detail analysis of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography (vol. 33, p. 1707, 2006). Medical Physics 33(9), 3580–3580 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Webster, M.A., Miyahara, E.: Contrast adaptation and the spatial structure of natural images. Journal of the Optical Society of America a Optics Image Science and Vision 14(9), 2355–2366 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelly, D.H.: Visual Contrast Sensitivity. Optica. Acta. 24(2), 107–129 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barten, P.G.J.: Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effect on image quality, vol. PM72. SPIE Press book (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park, S., et al.: Incorporating Human Contrast Sensitivity in Model Observers for Detection Tasks. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 28(3), 339–347 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Watson, A.B., Ahumada, A.J.: A standard model for foveal detection of spatial contrast. Journal of Vision 5(9), 717–740 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kramer, M.: R2 statistics for mixed models. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Applied Statistics in Agriculture (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramona W. Bouwman
    • 1
  • Ruben E. van Engen
    • 1
  • David R. Dance
    • 2
  • Kenneth C. Young
    • 2
  • Wouter J. H. Veldkamp
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Dutch Reference Centre for ScreeningRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre (LRCB)NijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.National Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford GU2 7XX, United Kingdom and Department of PhysicsUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyLeiden University Medical CentreLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations