Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability.

We consider detection of a nodule signal profile in noisy images meant to roughly simulate the statistical properties of tomographic image reconstructions in nuclear medicine. The images have two sources of variability arising from quantum noise from the imaging process and anatomical variability in the ensemble of objects being imaged. Both of these sources of variability are simulated by a stationary Gaussian random process. Sample images from this process are generated by filtering white-noise images. Human-observer performance in several signal-known-exactly detection tasks is evaluated through psychophysical studies by using the two-alternative forced-choice method. The tasks considered investigate parameters of the images that influence both the signal profile and pixel-to-pixel correlations in the images. The effect of low-pass filtering is investigated as an approximation to regularization implemented by image-reconstruction algorithms. The relative magnitudes of the quantum and the anatomical variability are investigated as an approximation to the effects of exposure time. Finally, we study the effect of the anatomical correlations in the form of an anatomical slope as an approximation to the effects of different tissue types. Human-observer performance is compared with the performance of a number of model observers computed directly from the ensemble statistics of the images used in the experiments for the purpose of finding predictive models. The model observers investigated include a number of nonprewhitening observers, the Hotelling observer (which is equivalent to the ideal observer for these studies), and six implementations of channelized-Hotelling observers. The human observers demonstrate large effects across the experimental parameters investigated. In the regularization study, performance exhibits a mild peak at intermediate levels of regularization before degrading at higher levels. The exposure-time study shows that human observers are able to detect ever more subtle lesions at increased exposure times. The anatomical slope study shows that human-observer performance degrades as anatomical variability extends into higher spatial frequencies. Of the observers tested, the channelized-Hotelling observers best capture the features of the human data.

[1]  A. Burgess Statistically defined backgrounds: performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[2]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[3]  R G Swensson,et al.  Detection of small focal lesions in CT images: effects of reconstruction filters and visual display windows. , 1985, The British journal of radiology.

[4]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Detectability Of Lesions Of Various Sizes On CT Images , 1985, Medical Imaging.

[5]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  Detection and Recognition of Simple Spatial Forms , 1983 .

[6]  H Ghandeharian,et al.  Visual signal detection. I. Ability to use phase information. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[7]  Kyle Jean Myers,et al.  Visual perception in correlated noise , 1985 .

[8]  C Abbey,et al.  Statistical texture synthesis of mammographic images with super-blob lumpy backgrounds. , 1999, Optics express.

[9]  Arthur E. Burgess,et al.  Mammographic structure: data preparation and spatial statistics analysis , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[10]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Size Discrimination Of Features On CT Images , 1986, Other Conferences.

[11]  M F Kijewski,et al.  The noise power spectrum of CT images. , 1987, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  H. Barrett,et al.  Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[13]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Multiresolution texture analysis for classification of mass and normal breast tissue on digital mammograms , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[14]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Estimation of human-observer templates in two-alternative forced-choice experiments , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[15]  H H Barrett,et al.  Hotelling trace criterion and its correlation with human-observer performance. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[16]  J. Robson,et al.  Spatial-frequency channels in human vision. , 1971, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[17]  Jannick P. Rolland,et al.  Linear discriminants and image quality , 1991, Image Vis. Comput..

[18]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[19]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Comparison of observer performance for real and simulated nodules in chest radiography , 1996, Medical Imaging.

[20]  H. Barrett,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality. III. ROC metrics, ideal observers, and likelihood-generating functions. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[21]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Stabilized estimates of Hotelling-observer detection performance in patient-structured noise , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[22]  J. Bergen,et al.  A four mechanism model for threshold spatial vision , 1979, Vision Research.

[23]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. II. Effects of contrast gain control, background variations, and white noise. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[24]  Robert Stanton,et al.  Radiological Imaging: The Theory of Image Formation, Detection, and Processing , 1983 .

[25]  Craig Kendall Abbey,et al.  Assessment of reconstructed images , 1998 .

[26]  Richard F. Voss,et al.  Fractals in nature: from characterization to simulation , 1988 .

[27]  R G Swensson,et al.  Display thresholding of images and observer detection performance. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[28]  J. Robson,et al.  Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[29]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. I. Effect of number of possible spatial locations and signal contrast. , 1996, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[30]  R. Bracewell The Fourier Transform and Its Applications , 1966 .

[31]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[32]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  A Systematic Approach to the Design of Diagnostic Systems for Nuclear Medicine , 1986 .

[33]  H H Barrett,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[34]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Quantifying The Performance Of Imaging Systems , 1985, Medical Imaging.

[35]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Observer signal-to-noise ratios for the ML-EM algorithm , 1996, Medical Imaging.

[36]  A E Burgess,et al.  The Rose model, revisited. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[37]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Estimates of human-observer templates for a simple detection task in correlated noise , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[38]  Norbert J. Pelc,et al.  The noise power spectrum in computed X-ray tomography. , 1978 .

[39]  R D Nawfel,et al.  Contrast-detail curves for liver CT. , 1992, Medical physics.

[40]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Nodule detection in two-component noise: toward patient structure , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[41]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Further investigation of the effect of phase spectrum on visual detection in structured backgrounds , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[42]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detection. IV. Observer inconsistency. , 1988, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[43]  H H Barrett,et al.  Statistical limitations in transaxial tomography. , 1976, Computers in biology and medicine.

[44]  H H Barrett,et al.  Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[45]  K Doi,et al.  A comparison of physical image quality indices and observer performance in the radiographic detection of nylon beads. , 1984, Physics in medicine and biology.

[46]  E. B. Cargill,et al.  A mathematical liver model and its application to system optimization and texture analysis. , 1989 .

[47]  Laurence P. Clarke,et al.  Multiresolution probability analysis of random fields , 1999 .

[48]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993 .

[49]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detectability with two noise components: anomalous masking effects. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[50]  C E Metz,et al.  Digital image processing: effect on detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic patterns. , 1984, Radiology.

[51]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Lesion detection in structured noise. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[52]  H. Wilson,et al.  Threshold visibility of frequency gradient patterns , 1977, Vision Research.

[53]  K Doi,et al.  Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 4. Effect of unsharp masking on the detectability of simple patterns. , 1985, Medical physics.