Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: Comparison with cathode ray tube displays

  • SESSION 4B: PACS Technology and Design
  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fifteen large-area, flat-panel displays used for clinical image review were evaluated for image quality and compared with 30 comparably sized cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Measurements were of image display patterns by Video Electronic Standards Association (VESA) and a commercial product. Field measurements were made of maximum and minimum luminance, ambient lighting, characteristic curve (gamma), point shape and size, high-contrast resolution, uniformity, and distortion. Assessments were made of pixel defects, latent image patterns, ghosting artifacts, and viewing angle luminance. Also, a questionnaire was generated for users of the flat-panel and CRT units. Seventeen respondents indicated no preference for either flat panel or CRT. Results show these flat panels to have higher luminance (mean, 177.7 cd/m2); larger number of just noticeable differences (JNDs; n=555), higher gamma, comparable uniformity, and warm-up time. CRTs had less angle viewing dependence and far fewer artifacts (ghosting and latent images). Our questionnaire showed active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCD) to be fully acceptable for clinical image viewing. Furthermore, the statistical results show that further testing for new AMLCDs of this type is unwarranted.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Erickson B, Ryan W, Gehring D, et al: Image display for clinicians on medical record workstations. J Digit Imaging 10:38–40, 1997 (suppl)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pavlicek W, Zavalkovskiy B, Eversman W, et al: Performance and function of a multiple star topology image management system at Mayo Clinic Scottsdale. J Digit Imaging 12:168–174, 1999 (suppl)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Eversman WG, Pavlicek W, Zavalkovskiy B, et al: Performance and function of a desktop viewer at Mayo Clinic Scottsdale. J Digit Imaging 13:147–152, 2000 (suppl 1)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mattern C, Erickson B, King B, et al: Impact of electronic imaging on clinician behavior in the urgent care setting. J Digit Imaging 12:148–151, 1999 (suppl)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. MultiSync LCD 2010 Users Manual. Itasca, IL, NEC Technologies, 1999

  6. Blume H, Hemminger B: Image presentation in digital radiology: perspectives on the emerging DICOM display function standard and its application. Proc Radiol Soc North Am 213:769–777, 1997 (suppl)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Flat Panel Display Measurements Standard Version 1.0. San Jose, CA, Video Electronics Standards Association, 1999

  8. Gray J, Lisk K, Haddics D, et al: Test pattern for video displays and hard copy cameras. Radiology 154:519–527, 1985

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. DICOM Image Quality Standards. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM). Part 14, Grayscale Standard Display Function. Rossyln, VA, 1998, p 3, 14

  10. Flynn M, Badano A: Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices. J Digit Imaging 12:50–59, 1999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Umezu N, Nakano Y, Sakai T, et al: Specular and diffuse reflection measurement feasibility study of ISO9241, Part 7 method. Displays 19:17–25, 1998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schenkman B, Fukuda T, Persson B: Glare from monitors measured with subjective scales and eye movements. Displays 20:11–21, 1999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Teunissen K, Hamberg R, Martens J: The optimal glass transmission coefficient as a function of the level of diffuse ambient illumination. Displays 17:94–99, 1997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sarma K: Active-Matrix LCDs. San Jose, CA Society for Information Display, Seminar Lecture Notes, 1999

  15. Monarchie D, Budzilek R, Cupero F: Sunlight viewable electroluminescent displays for military application. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 10:21–25, 1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Menozzi M, Napflin U, Krueger H: CRT versus LCD: A pilot study on visual performance and suitability of two display technologies for use in office work. Displays 20:3–10, 1999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hangiandreou N, Fetterly K, Felmlee J: Optimization of a contrast-detail based method for electronic image display quality evaluation. J Digit Imaging 12:60–67, 1999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hemminger B, Dillon A, Johnston R, et al: Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms. Med Phys 26:2266–2272, 1999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Di Pasquale F, Deng H, Fernandez A, et al: Theoretical and experimental study of nematic liquid crystal display cells using the in-plane-switching mode. IEEE Transact Electron Devices 46:661–668, 1999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Travis D, Stewart T: Statistical methods for testing the visual quality of displays. Displays 18:29–36, 1997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Roehrig H: Guest Editorial: Image quality assurance for CRT display systems. J Digit Imaging 12:1–2, 1999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Roehrig H, Willis C, Damento M: Characterization of monochrome CRT display systems in the field. J Digit Imaging 12:152–165, 1999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. American College of Radiology Standard for Teleradiology. Reston, VA, ACR, effective 1/1/99

  24. Spekowius G: Characterization of color CRT display systems for monochrome applications. J Digit Imaging 12:102–113, 1999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. ISO 9241: 1992 Ergonomic requirements for office work with display terminals (VDTs), Part 3 Visual display requirements. 7.2. Statistical test. V5.3 1–15, Geneva, Switzerland, February 11, 1999

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Engineering, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ

    William Pavlicek PhD, James M. Owen & Mary Beth Peter

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic Scottsdale, 3400 E Shea Blvd., 85259, Scottsdale, AZ

    William Pavlicek PhD, James M. Owen & Mary Beth Peter

Authors
  1. William Pavlicek PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James M. Owen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mary Beth Peter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Pavlicek PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pavlicek, W., Owen, J.M. & Peter, M.B. Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: Comparison with cathode ray tube displays. J Digit Imaging 13 (Suppl 1), 155–161 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03167650

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03167650

Keywords

Search

Navigation