Advertisement

Edge-affected context for adaptive contrast enhancement

  • R Cromartie
  • S M Pizer
9. Image Quality, Display And Interaction
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 511)

Abstract

Contrast enhancement is a fundamental step in the display of digital images. The end result of display is the perceived brightness occurring in the human observer; design of effective contrast enhancement mappings therefore requires understanding of human brightness perception. Recent advances in this area have emphasized the importance of image structure in determining our perception of brightnesses, and consequently contrast enhancement methods which attempt to use structural information are being widely investigated. In this paper we present two promising methods we feel are strong competitors to presently-used techniques. We begin with a survey of contrast enhancement techniques for use with medical images. Classical adaptive algorithms use one or more statistics of the intensity distribution of local image areas to compute the displayed pixel values. More recently, techniques which attempt to take direct account of local structural information have been developed. The use of this structural information, in particular edge strengths, in defining contextual regions seems especially important. Two new methods based on this idea are presented and discussed, namely edge-affected unsharp masking followed by contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization (AHE), and diffusive histogram equalization, a variant of AHE in which weighted contextual regions are calculated by edge-affected diffusion. Results on typical medical images are given.

Keywords

Edge-limited diffusion human vision 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beghdadi A and Le Negrate A (1989). Contrast enhancement technique based on local detection of edges. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 46: 162–174.Google Scholar
  2. Blume H and Kamiya K (1987). Auto-ranging and normalization versus histogram modifications for automatic image processing of digital radiographs. Proc. S.P.I.E. 767 Medical Imaging: 371–386.Google Scholar
  3. Cormack J and Hutton BF (1981). Quantitation and optimization of digitized scintigraphic display characteristics using information theory. Medical Image Processing: Proceedings of the VIIth International Meeting on Information Processing in Medical Imaging, Stanford University: 240–263.Google Scholar
  4. Dhawan AT, Buelloni G and Gordon R (1986). Enhancement of mammographic features by optimal neighborhood image processing. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging MI-5 No. 1: 8–15.Google Scholar
  5. Frei W (1977). Image enhancement by histogram hyperbolization. Computer Graphics and Image Processing 6: 286–294.Google Scholar
  6. Gerig, G and de Moliner R (1989). Personal communication.Google Scholar
  7. Gordon R (1986). Enhancement of mammographic features by optimal neighborhood image processing. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging MI-5 No. 1: 8–15.Google Scholar
  8. Grossberg S (1984). Neural dynamics of brightness perception: features, boundaries, diffusion, and resonance. Perception and Psychophysics 36 (5): 428–456.Google Scholar
  9. Harris, Jr. JL (1977). Constant variance enhancement: a digital processing technique. Applied Optics 16: 1268–1271.Google Scholar
  10. Kim V and Yaroslavskii L (1986). Rank algorithms for picture processing. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 35: 234–258.Google Scholar
  11. Loo LD, Doi K and Metz C (1985). Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography 4. Effect of unsharp masking on the detectability of simple patterns. Medical Physics 12: 209–214.Google Scholar
  12. Perona P and Malik J (1988). Scale-space and edge detection using anisotropic diffusion. Report UCB/CSD 88/483, Computer Science Division University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Pizer SM (1981a). Intensity mappings to linearize display devices. Computer Graphics and Image Processing 17: 262–268.Google Scholar
  14. Pizer SM (1981b). An automatic intensity mapping for the display of CT scans and other images. Medical Image Processing: Proceedings of the VIIth International Meeting on Information Processing in Medical Imaging, Stanford University: 276–309.Google Scholar
  15. Pizer SM, Amburn EP, Austin JD, Cromartie R, Geselowitz A, ter Haar Romeny B, Zimmerman JB and Zuiderveld K (1987). Adaptive histogram equalization and its variations. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 39: 355–368.Google Scholar
  16. Rehm K, Seely GW, Dallas WJ, Ovitt TW and Seeger JF (1990). Design and testing of artifact-suppressed adaptive histogram equalization: A contrast-enhancement technique for the display of digital chest radiographs. Journal of Thoracic Imaging 5, No. 1: 85–91.Google Scholar
  17. Sorenson J (1987). Effects of improved contrast on lung-nodule detection A clinical ROC study. Investigative Radiology 22: 772–780.Google Scholar
  18. Wallis R (1976). An approach to the space variant restoration and enhancement of images. Proceedings of the Symposium on Current Mathematical Problems in Image Science, Monterey, California, Naval Postgraduate School.Google Scholar
  19. Zimmerman JB (1985). Effectiveness of Adaptive Contrast Enhancement. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • R Cromartie
    • 1
  • S M Pizer
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill
  2. 2.Departments of Radiology and Radiation OncologyThe University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations