Visual detection efficiency in ultrasonic imaging: A framework for objective assessment of image quality

Experimental methods for estimating detection efficiencies of human and computational observers viewing low‐contrast circular targets in acoustic noise are described. Sonographic images were simulated with signal and noise properties specified exactly. These images were presented to observers in two‐alternative forced‐choice (2AFC) experiments. Relative to the ideal observer of these images, i.e., the prewhitening matched filter, human observers were 60% efficient for detecting targets over a broad range of target energies and for both target polarities. Studies were limited to situations where target diameters were much larger than the correlation length of the noise. In that case, observers unable to decorrelate the noise showed no reduction in detectability as predicted by theory. For example, the efficiency of one computational observer, a nonprewhitening matched filter, was nearly ideal. Its response was proportional to that of the average human observer, which suggests a role for computational observers in image evaluation.

[1]  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.

[2]  J. Swets Indices of discrimination or diagnostic accuracy: their ROCs and implied models. , 1986, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  G E Trahey,et al.  A Quantitative Approach to Speckle Reduction via Frequency Compounding , 1986, Ultrasonic imaging.

[4]  J. E. Glynn,et al.  Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing , 1989 .

[5]  T J Hall,et al.  Ultrasound contrast-detail analysis: a preliminary study in human observer performance. , 1993, Medical physics.

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

[7]  D. Middleton An Introduction to Statistical Communication Theory , 1960 .

[8]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Statistics of Speckle in Ultrasound B-Scans , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics.

[9]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Observer Efficiency And Feature Polarity , 1987, Medical Imaging.

[10]  A. Simpson,et al.  What is the best index of detectability? , 1973, Psychological Bulletin.

[11]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Statistical properties of radio-frequency and envelope-detected signals with applications to medical ultrasound. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[12]  Kenneth M. Hanson,et al.  Method of evaluating image-recovery algorithms based on task performance , 1990 .

[13]  Robert N. McDonough,et al.  Detection of signals in noise , 1971 .

[14]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Low Contrast Detectability and Contrast/Detail Analysis in Medical Ultrasound , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics.

[15]  J. Goodman Statistical Properties of Laser Speckle Patterns , 1963 .

[16]  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.

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