Abstract
The authors previously reported a general technique based on contrast-detail methods to provide an overall quantitative evaluation of electronic image display quality. The figure-of-merit reflecting overall display quality is called maximum threshold contrast or MTC. In this work we have optimized the MTC technique through improvements in both the test images and the figure-of-merit computation. The test images were altered to match the average luminance with that observed for clinical computed radiographic images. The figure-of-merit calculation was altered to allow for contrast-detail data with slopes not equal to −1. Preliminary experiments also were conducted to demonstrate the response of the MTC measurements to increased noise in the displayed image. MTC measurements were obtained from five observers using the improved test images displayed with maximum monitor luminance settings of 30-, 50-, and 70-ft-Lamberts. Similar measurements were obtained from two observers using test images altered by the addition of a low level of image noise. The noise-free MTC and MTC difference measurements exhibited standard deviations of 0.77 and 1.55, respectively. This indicates good measurement precision, comparable or superior to that observed using the earlier MTC technique. No statistically significant image quality differences versus maximum monitor luminance were seen. The noise-added MTC measurements were greater than the noise-free values by an average of 4.08 pixel values, and this difference was statistically significant. This response is qualitatively correct, and is judged to indicate good sensitivity of the MTC measurement to increased noise levels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Senol E, Muka E: Spatial frequency characteristics of CRT soft-copy displays, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1995: Image Display. Proc SPIE 2431:302–315, 1995
Weibrecht M, Spekowius G, Quadfleig P, et al: Image quality assessment of monochrome monitors for medical soft copy display, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1997: Image Display. Proc SPIE 3031:232–244, 1997
Launders JH, Kengyelics SM, Cowen AR: A comprehensive physical image quality evaluation of a selenium based digital x-ray imaging system for thorax radiography. Med Phys 25:986–997, 1998
Cohen G, DiBianca FA: The use of contrast-detail-dose evaluation of image quality in a computed tomographic scanner. J Comput Assist Tomogr 3:189–195, 1979
Constable RT, Henkelman RM: Contrast, resolution and detectability in MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 15:297–303, 1991
Dobbins JT, Rice JJ, Beam CA, et al: Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: Implications for chest radiography. Radiology 183:179–187, 1992
Hangiandreou NJ, Fetterly KA, Bernatz SN, et al: Quantitative evaluation of overall electronic display quality. J Digit Imaging 11:180–186, 1998 (suppl 1)
Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Yu T: Observer performance comparison of digital radiographic systems for stereotactic breast needle biopsy. Acta Radiol 2:116–122, 1995
Mertelmeier T, Kocher TE: Monitor simulations for the optimization of medical soft copies, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1996: Image Display. Proc SPIE 2707:322–333, 1996
Muka E, Mertelmeier T, Slone RM, et al: Impact of phosphor luminance noise on the specification of high-resolution CRT displays for medical imaging, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1997: Image Display. Proc SPIE 3031:210–221, 1997
Hangiandreou NJ, King BF, Swensen AR, et al: Picture archive and communication system implementation in a community medicine practice. J Digit Imaging 10:36–37, 1997 (suppl 1)
Rose A: The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. J Soc Opt Am 38:196–208, 1948
Wagner RF, Brown DG: Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems. Phys Med Biol 30:489–518, 1985
Cook LT, Cox GG, Insana MF, et al: Comparison of a cathode-ray-tube and film for display of medical images. Med Phys 25:1132–1138, 1998
Blume H, Members of the ACR/NEMA Working Group XI: The ACR/NEMA proposal for a gray-scale display function standard, in Kim Y (ed): Medical Imaging 1996: Image Display. Proc SPIE 2707:344–360, 1996
Cohen G, McDaniel DL, Wagner LK: Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments. Med Phys 11:469–473, 1984
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hangiandreou, N.J., Fetterly, K.A. & Felmlee, J.P. Optimization of a contrast-detail-based method for electronic image display quality evaluation. J Digit Imaging 12, 60–67 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168844
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03168844