Quantification of Detection Probability of Microcalcifications at Increased Display Luminance Levels

  • Tom R. L. Kimpe
  • Albert Xthona
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7361)


Only 70-80% of breast cancer is detected in the screening environment. Detection of microcalcifications is generally incomplete and limits effectiveness of controlling breast cancer through early detection. Any advantage in detection of microcalcifications would be highly welcome. Anecdotal comments from practicing radiologists suggest that increased luminance provides one way to increase the detection of relevant microcalcifications. This paper aims to study the effect of increased display luminance on the detection probability of microcalcifications.


Spatial Frequency Detection Probability Contrast Sensitivity Psychometric Function Contrast Ratio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pisano, E., Acharyya, S., Cole, E., Marques, H., Yaffe, M., Blevins, M., Conant, E., Hendrick, R., Baum, J., Fajardo, L.: Cancer Cases from ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: Radiologist Analysis with Use of a Logistic Regression Model. Radiology 252, 348 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Orsi, C.: Breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liberman, L., Abramson, A., Squires, F., Glassman, J., Morris, E., Dershaw, D.: The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. American Journal of Roentgenology 171, 35–40 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pisano, E., Britt, G., Lin, Y., Schell, M., Burns, C., Brown, M.: Factors affecting phantom scores at annual mammography facility inspections by the US Food and Drug Administration. Academic Radiology 8, 864–870 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin, J., Moskowitz, M.: Breast cancer missed by mammography. American Journal of Roentgenology 132, 737–739 (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Dijck, J., Verbeek, A., Hendriks, J., Holland, R.: The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program. A review of the previous mammograms of interval and screening detected cancers. Cancer 72, 1933–1938 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NEMA, Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), Supplement 28: Grayscale standard display function (GSDF) (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barten, P.G.J.: PhD thesis Technical University of Eindhoven. Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nachmias, J.: On the psychometric function for contrast detection. Vision Research 21(2), 215–223 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wichmann, F.A., Hill, N.J.: The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Attention Perception and Psychophysics 63(8), 1293–1313 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krupinski, E.A., Roehrig, H., Furukawa, T.: Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search. Acad. Radiol. 6, 411–418 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom R. L. Kimpe
    • 1
  • Albert Xthona
    • 2
  1. 1.Barco HealthcareKortrijkBelgium
  2. 2.Barco HealthcareBeavertonUSA

Personalised recommendations