Monochrome versus color softcopy displays for teleradiology: observer performance and visual search efficiency.

This study evaluated the potential clinical utility for teleradiology of a high-performance (3-mega-pixel) color softcopy display compared with two monochrome softcopy displays: one of comparable luminance (250 cd/m2) and one of higher luminance (450 cd/m2). Six radiologists viewed 50 chest images, half with nodules and half without, once on each display. Eye position was recorded on a subset of the images to characterize visual search efficiency. There was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic performance as a function of monitor (F=1.176, p=0.3127), although the higher luminance display yielded slightly better performance. In terms of total viewing time, there were no statistically significant differences between the three monitors (F=1.478, p=0.2298). The dwell times associated with true- and false-positive decisions were shortest for the high luminance monochrome display, longer for the low luminance monochrome, and longest for the low luminance color display. Dwells for the false-negative decisions were longest for the high luminance monochrome display, shorter for the low luminance monochrome, and shortest for the low luminance color display. The true negative dwells were not significantly different. The study suggests that high-performance color displays can be used for teleradiologic interpretation of diagnostic images without negatively impacting diagnostic accuracy or visual search efficiency to a significant degree.

[1]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Visual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms. , 1996, Academic radiology.

[2]  Alan Bishop,et al.  ROC Study of Four LCD Displays Under Typical Medical Center Lighting Conditions , 2005, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[3]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[4]  T Liebig,et al.  Shortcomings of low-cost imaging systems for viewing computed radiographs. , 2000, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[5]  Anthony J Doyle,et al.  Personal computer versus workstation display: observer performance in detection of wrist fractures on digital radiographs. , 2005, Radiology.

[6]  David S. Channin,et al.  Comparison of Human Observer Performance of Contrast-Detail Detection Across Multiple Liquid Crystal Displays , 2005, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[7]  E A Krupinski,et al.  The influence of a perceptually linearized display on observer performance and visual search. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[8]  Hans Roehrig,et al.  Pulmonary nodule detection and visual search: P45 and P104 monochrome versus color monitor displays. , 2002, Academic radiology.

[9]  Elizabeth A Krupinski,et al.  Visual search of mammographic images: influence of lesion subtlety. , 2005, Academic radiology.

[10]  C Gillessen,et al.  Evaluation der Abbildungsqualität unterschiedlicher Befundungsmodalitäten in der digitalen Radiologie , 2004 .

[11]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Eye-movement study and human performance using telepathology virtual slides: implications for medical education and differences with experience. , 2006, Human pathology.

[12]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Recording and analyzing eye-position data using a microcomputer workstation , 1992 .