Evaluation of the channelized Hotelling observer with an internal-noise model in a train-test paradigm for cardiac SPECT defect detection

The channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) has become a widely used approach for evaluating medical image quality, acting as a surrogate for human observers in early-stage research on assessment and optimization of imaging devices and algorithms. The CHO is typically used to measure lesion detectability. Its popularity stems from experiments showing that the CHO's detection performance can correlate well with that of human observers. In some cases, CHO performance overestimates human performance; to counteract this effect, an internal-noise model is introduced, which allows the CHO to be tuned to match human-observer performance. Typically, this tuning is achieved using example data obtained from human observers. We argue that this internal-noise tuning step is essentially a model training exercise; therefore, just as in supervised learning, it is essential to test the CHO with an internal-noise model on a set of data that is distinct from that used to tune (train) the model. Furthermore, we argue that, if the CHO is to provide useful insights about new imaging algorithms or devices, the test data should reflect such potential differences from the training data; it is not sufficient simply to use new noise realizations of the same imaging method. Motivated by these considerations, the novelty of this paper is the use of new model selection criteria to evaluate ten established internal-noise models, utilizing four different channel models, in a train-test approach. Though not the focus of the paper, a new internal-noise model is also proposed that outperformed the ten established models in the cases tested. The results, using cardiac perfusion SPECT data, show that the proposed train-test approach is necessary, as judged by the newly proposed model selection criteria, to avoid spurious conclusions. The results also demonstrate that, in some models, the optimal internal-noise parameter is very sensitive to the choice of training data; therefore, these models are prone to overfitting, and will not likely generalize well to new data. In addition, we present an alternative interpretation of the CHO as a penalized linear regression wherein the penalization term is defined by the internal-noise model.

[1]  Yongyi Yang,et al.  Numerical observer for cardiac motion assessment using machine learning , 2011, Medical Imaging.

[2]  M. Kendall Rank Correlation Methods , 1949 .

[3]  E. Peli,et al.  Contrast sensitivity function and image discrimination. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[4]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Optimal shifted estimates of human-observer templates in two-alternative forced-choice experiments , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[5]  Miguel P. Eckstein,et al.  Automated optimization of JPEG 2000 encoder options based on model observer performance for detecting variable signals in X-ray coronary angiograms , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[6]  M. King,et al.  A mathematical model of motion of the heart for use in generating source and attenuation maps for simulating emission imaging. , 1999, Medical physics.

[7]  Yongyi Yang,et al.  Generalization evaluation of numerical observers for image quality assessment , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[8]  Miles N. Wernick,et al.  Optimization of iterative reconstructions of /sup 99m/Tc cardiac SPECT studies using numerical observers , 2001 .

[9]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Multireader, multicase receiver operating characteristic analysis: an empirical comparison of five methods. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[10]  M. Ljungberg,et al.  A Monte Carlo program for the simulation of scintillation camera characteristics. , 1989, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[11]  T K Narayan,et al.  Prediction of human observer performance by numerical observers: an experimental study. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[12]  Hiroshi Fukuda,et al.  Predicting human performance by channelized Hotelling observer in discriminating between Alzheimer’s dementia and controls using statistically processed brain perfusion SPECT , 2006, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[13]  B.M.W. Tsui,et al.  Comparison of radially-symmetric versus oriented channel. Models using channelized hotelling observers for myocardial defect detection in parallel-hole SPECT , 1998, 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.98CH36255).

[14]  B.M.W. Tsui,et al.  Comparison of channelized hotelling and human observers in determining optimum OS-EM reconstruction parameters for myocardial SPECT , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[15]  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.

[16]  M.A. King,et al.  A comparison of human observer LROC and numerical observer ROC for tumor detection in SPECT images , 1998, 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record. 1998 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.98CH36255).

[17]  Jovan G. Brankov,et al.  Estimating the standard deviation from extreme Gaussian values , 2004, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[18]  F. E. Grubbs,et al.  The best unbiased estimate of population standard deviation based on group ranges. , 1947, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[19]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Efficiency of the human observer for detecting a Gaussian signal at a known location in non-Gaussian distributed lumpy backgrounds. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[20]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[21]  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.

[22]  B. Dosher,et al.  Characterizing human perceptual inefficiencies with equivalent internal noise. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[23]  G Gindi,et al.  A channelized Hotelling observer study of lesion detection in SPECT MAP reconstruction using anatomical priors. , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  E Peli,et al.  Test of a model of foveal vision by using simulations. , 1996, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[25]  Matt A. King,et al.  Channelized hotelling and human observer correlation for lesion detection in hepatic SPECT imaging. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  I. Buvat,et al.  A review of partial volume correction techniques for emission tomography and their applications in neurology, cardiology and oncology , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Incorporating Human Contrast Sensitivity in Model Observers for Detection Tasks , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[28]  D. Lalush,et al.  Comparison of Hotelling observer models and human observers in defect detection from myocardial SPECT imaging , 1999 .

[29]  H H Barrett,et al.  Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[30]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  Volumetric model and human observer comparisons of tumor detection for whole-body positron emission tomography. , 2004, Academic radiology.

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

[32]  Howard C. Gifford,et al.  Tests of scanning model observers for myocardial SPECT imaging , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[33]  N. Nagaraja,et al.  Effect of Luminance Noise on Contrast Thresholds , 1964 .

[34]  A Burgess Effect of quantization noise on visual signal detection in noisy images. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[35]  M.N. Wernick,et al.  Learning a nonlinear channelized observer for image quality assessment , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[36]  Jie Yao,et al.  Predicting human performance by a channelized Hotelling observer model , 1992, Optics & Photonics.

[37]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[38]  Peter G. J. Barten,et al.  Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its e ects on image quality , 1999 .

[39]  P. Khurd,et al.  Channelized hotelling and human observer study of optimal smoothing in SPECT MAP reconstruction , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[40]  Miguel P. Eckstein,et al.  The effect of nonlinear human visual system components on performance of a channelized Hotelling observer in structured backgrounds , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[41]  Yongyi Yang,et al.  Learning a Channelized Observer for Image Quality Assessment , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[42]  Irène Buvat,et al.  Review and current status of SPECT scatter correction , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[43]  David L. Wilson,et al.  Optimization of detector pixel size for stent visualization in x-ray fluoroscopy. , 2006 .

[44]  Cyril Castella,et al.  Human linear template with mammographic backgrounds estimated with a genetic algorithm. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[45]  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.

[46]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Evaluation of internal noise methods for Hotelling observer models. , 2007, Medical physics.

[47]  Lars Kai Hansen,et al.  The Quantitative Evaluation of Functional Neuroimaging Experiments: The NPAIRS Data Analysis Framework , 2000, NeuroImage.

[48]  Jay Bartroff,et al.  Automated computer evaluation and optimization of image compression of x-ray coronary angiograms for signal known exactly detection tasks. , 2003, Optics express.

[49]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Validating the use of channels to estimate the ideal linear observer. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[50]  C A Roe,et al.  Statistical Comparison of Two ROC-curve Estimates Obtained from Partially-paired Datasets , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.