Ideal versus human observer for long-tailed point spread functions: does deconvolution help?

The ideal observer represents a Bayesian approach to performing detection tasks. Since such tasks are frequently used as a prototype tasks for radiological imaging systems, the detectability measured at the output of an ideal detector can be used as a figure of merit to characterize the imaging system. For the detectability achieved by the ideal observer to be a good figure of merit, it should predict the ability of the human observer to perform the same detection task. Of great general interest, especially to the medical community, are imaging devices with long-tailed point spread functions (PSFs). Such PSFs may occur due to septal penetration in collimators, veiling glare in image intensifiers or scattered radiation in the body. We have investigated the effect that this type of PSF has on human visual signal detection and whether any improvement in performance can be gained by deconvolving the tails of the PSF. For the ideal observer, it is straightforward to show that the performance is independent of any linear, invertible deconvolution filter. Our psychophysical studies show, however, that performance of the human observer is indeed improved by deconvolution. The ideal observer is, therefore, not a good predictor of human observer performance for detection of a signal imaged through a long-tailed PSF. We offer some explanations for this discrepancy by using some characteristics of the visual process and suggest a standard of comparison for the human observer that takes into account these characteristics. A look at the performance of the non-prewhitening (npw) ideal observer, before and after deconvolution, also brings some good insight into this study.

[1]  H. B. Barlow,et al.  What does the eye see best? , 1983, Nature.

[2]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Overview of a Unified SNR Analysis of Medical Imaging Systems , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[3]  C E Metz,et al.  A comparison of optimum detector spatial resolution in nuclear imaging based on statistical theory and on observer performance. , 1978, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[5]  John Mazzeo,et al.  A general interactive computer program for running signal detection experiments , 1982 .

[6]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Human Signal Detection Performance For Noisy Medical Images , 1982, Other Conferences.

[7]  H. Barlow The efficiency of detecting changes of density in random dot patterns , 1978, Vision Research.

[8]  C E Metz,et al.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[9]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Detection Of Bars And Discs In Quantum Noise , 1979, Other Conferences.

[10]  Theodore G. Birdsall,et al.  Definitions of d′ and η as Psychophysical Measures , 1958 .

[11]  J. Goodman Introduction to Fourier optics , 1969 .

[12]  K. Hanson,et al.  Detectability in computed tomographic images. , 1979, Medical physics.

[13]  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.

[14]  S. Larsson,et al.  Generalized scatter correction method in SPECT using point scatter distribution functions. , 1987, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[15]  C. Metz ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[16]  S Webb,et al.  Deconvolution of emission tomographic data: a clinical evaluation. , 1988, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  J A Seibert,et al.  X-ray scatter removal by deconvolution. , 1988, Medical physics.

[18]  A Macovski,et al.  Reducing the effects of scattered photons in X-ray projection imaging. , 1989, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[19]  J. Swets ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging techniques. , 1979, Investigative radiology.

[20]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems , 1985, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  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.

[22]  C E Metz,et al.  Caveat on use of the parameter d' for evaluation of observer performance. , 1973, Radiology.

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

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

[25]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Quantitative Study Of Deconvolution And Display Mappings For Long-Tailed Point-Spread Functions , 1989, Medical Imaging.

[26]  G. Legge,et al.  Contrast discrimination in noise. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[27]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. , 1981, Science.