Visual Perception Limits In Angiography

The results of two types of visual detection experiments will be presented and discussed. One set of experiments was done using single bar targets optically superimposed on a variety of backgrounds. The experiments were designed to determine functional relationships between the target contrast at the detection threshold and a number of variables. The variables included bar angular width, bar angular length, back-ground noise level, and viewing distance. The second set of experiments was done using radiographs of aluminum wires. The radiographs were produced using a conventional neuro-angiography system with a 0.38 mm focus. The aluminum wire diameter at the detection threshold was determined as a function of geometric magnification for several screen-film combinations. The aim of the experiments is to determine how to calculate visual signal-to-noise ratios. Some progress has been made toward this goal.

[1]  David J. Goodenough.  The Need For Physical And Psychophysical Measures Of System Performance , 1974, Other Conferences.

[2]  H L Kundel,et al.  The image and its influence on quantitative radiological data. , 1972, Investigative Radiology.

[3]  K Rossmann,et al.  The effect of radiographic magnification on blood vessel imaging with various screen-film systems. , 1974, Medical physics.

[4]  Kenneth E. Weaver,et al.  An Assortment Of Image Quality Indexes For Radiographic Film-Screen Combinations ---Can They Be Resolved? , 1972, Other Conferences.

[5]  R. H. Willson,et al.  Recent Psychophysical Experiments and the Display Signal-to-Noise Ratio Concept , 1973 .

[6]  K. Doi,et al.  COMPUTER SIMULATION OF SMALL BLOOD VESSEL IMAGING IN MAGNIFICATION RADIOGRAPHY. , 1972 .

[7]  H. Blackwell.  Luminance Difference Thresholds , 1972 .

[8]  D. Adams,et al.  The potential of magnification angiography. , 1974, The American journal of roentgenology, radium therapy, and nuclear medicine.

[9]  F. Campbell,et al.  The effect of orientation on the visual resolution of gratings , 1966, The Journal of physiology.

[10]  J. L. Harris.  Resolving Power and Decision Theory , 1964 .

[11]  K Doi.  Field characteristics of geometric unsharpness due to the x-ray tube focal spot. , 1977, Medical physics.

[12]  M. M. Taylor,et al.  Visual discrimination and orientation. , 1963, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[13]  Rene Omer Duville,et al.  A New Approach to the Evaluation of Radiographic Systems , 1971 .

[14]  A. Rose,et al.  Vision: human and electronic , 1973 .

[15]  Otto H. Schade.  Evaluation Of Noisy Images , 1974, Other Conferences.

[16]  Harvey Eisenberg,et al.  The Value Of Making the 0.2mm Microfocus Tube the Standard for Routine Direct Magnification Angiography , 1976, Other Conferences.

[17]  K. Rossmann,et al.  Recording of X-Ray Quantum Fluctuations in Radiographs* , 1962 .

[18]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Toward a unified view of radiological imaging systems. Part II: Noisy images. , 1977, Medical physics.

[19]  Michael L. Hines.  Line spread function variation near the fovea , 1976, Vision Research.

[20]  R. Shapley.  Gaussian bars and rectangular bars: the influence of width and gradient on visibility. , 1974, Vision research.

[21]  Tamas Sandor,et al.  A Computer Model For Assessing The Potential Of Rare-Earth Screens In Magnification Angiography , 1976, Other Conferences.

[22]  K Rossmann,et al.  Effect of focal spot distribution on blood vessel imaging in magnification radiography. , 1975, Radiology.