Image Contour Spread in Computed Tomography

  • S. Tabakoff
Conference paper
Part of the Frontiers in European Radiology book series (FER, volume 8)


Problems of image contour spread in roentgenology are well known. They concern the influence of different apparatus, X-ray, photo, and optical parameters on the image unsharpness and on the corresponding spatial resolution [3, 14]. In conventional roentgenology, there exist different methods for decrease in image unsharpness that is, decrease in their contour spread. This fact, combined with the specific features of the X-ray image, causes spread width (the transition layer width between the images of two contiguous structures) to be normally below 1 mm, this having no substantial effect on diagnostical interpretation.


Transition Layer Apparatus Parameter Compute Tomography Measurement Reconstruction Filter Slice Width 
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.
    Alexander J, Kalender W, Linke G (1986) Comuptertomographie. Siemens AG, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Assimakopoulos P, Boyd D, Jaschke W, Lipton J (1986) Spatial resolution analysis of computed tomographic images. Invest Radiol 21:260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barett H, Swindell W (1981) Radiological imaging. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beers G, Carter A, Leiter B, Tilak S, Shah R (1985) Interobserver discrepancies in distance measurements from lumbar spine CT scans. AJR 144:395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bentzen S (1983) Evaluation of the spatial resolution of CT scanner by direct analysis of the edge response function. Med Phys 10:579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DiChiro G, Arimitsu T, Brooks R (1979) Computed tomography profiles of periventricular hypodensity in hydrocephalus and leukoencephalopathy. Radiology 130:661Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eubanks B, Cann C, Zavadski M (1985) CT measurement of the diameter of spinal and other bony canals: effects of section angle and thickness. Radiology 157:243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gado M, Phelps M (1975) The peripheral zone of increased density in cranial computed tomography. Radiology 117:71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodenough G, Weaver K, Davis D, LaFalse S (1982) Volume averaging limitations of computed tomography. AJR 138:313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jensen P, Orphanoudakis S, Rauschnoeb E, Baron R, Lang R, Rasmussen H (1980) Assessment of bone mass in the radius by computed tomography. AJR 134:285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Judy P (1976) The line spread function and modulation transfer function of a computed tomographic scanner. Med Phys 3:233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Judy P, Swensson R (1985) Detection of small focal lesions in CT images—Effects of reconstruction filters and visual display windows. Br J Radiol 58:137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koehler P, Anderson R, Baxter B (1979) The effect of computed tomography viewer controls on anatomical measurements. Radiology 130:189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krestel E (1980) Bildgebende Systeme fur die medizinische Diagnostik. Siemens AG, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCullough E, Payne T, Baker H, Hattery R, Sheedy P, Stephens D, Gedgandus E (1976) Performance evaluation and quality assurance of computed tomography scanners with illustration from the EMI, ACTA and Delta scanners. Radiology 120:173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siegelman S, Zerhouny E, Leo F, Khouri N, Stick F (1980) CT of solitary pulmonary nodule. AJR 135:1PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tabakoff S (1988) Optimization of computed tomographic linear and density measurements in medical practice. PhD Dissertation, SofiaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teilkamp H, Rosenkranz G, Geissler S, Hupke M (1987) Die Genauigkeit von computertomographischen Gröpenbestimmungen. Radiol Diagn 28:715Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ullrich C, Binet E, Saneski M, Kiefler S (1980) Quantitative assessment of the lumbar spinal canal by computed tomography. Radiology 134:137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    White D, Speller R, Taylor P (1981) Evaluating performance characteristics in computerized tomography. Br J Radiol 54:221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Young S, Nassi M (1985) The critical importance of convolution function (algorithm) selection in the measurment of blood flow in small blood vessels by computed tomography scanning. Comput Radiol 9:287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhu X (1983) Partial volume phenomenon. AJR 141:842PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Tabakoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RoentgenologyHigher Medical Institute—PlovdivPlovdivBulgaria

Personalised recommendations