Image Quality Characteristics of Handheld Display Devices for Medical Imaging

Handheld devices such as mobile phones and tablet computers have become widespread with thousands of available software applications. Recently, handhelds are being proposed as part of medical imaging solutions, especially in emergency medicine, where immediate consultation is required. However, handheld devices differ significantly from medical workstation displays in terms of display characteristics. Moreover, the characteristics vary significantly among device types. We investigate the image quality characteristics of various handheld devices with respect to luminance response, spatial resolution, spatial noise, and reflectance. We show that the luminance characteristics of the handheld displays are different from those of workstation displays complying with grayscale standard target response suggesting that luminance calibration might be needed. Our results also demonstrate that the spatial characteristics of handhelds can surpass those of medical workstation displays particularly for recent generation devices. While a 5 mega-pixel monochrome workstation display has horizontal and vertical modulation transfer factors of 0.52 and 0.47 at the Nyquist frequency, the handheld displays released after 2011 can have values higher than 0.63 at the respective Nyquist frequencies. The noise power spectra for workstation displays are higher than 1.2 × 10(-5) mm(2) at 1 mm(-1), while handheld displays have values lower than 3.7 × 10(-6) mm(2). Reflectance measurements on some of the handheld displays are consistent with measurements for workstation displays with, in some cases, low specular and diffuse reflectance coefficients. The variability of the characterization results among devices due to the different technological features indicates that image quality varies greatly among handheld display devices.

[1]  Rebecca Vogel,et al.  Evaluation of high‐resolution and mobile display systems for digital radiology in dark and bright environments using human and computational observers , 2007 .

[2]  James R. Stone,et al.  Handheld Device Review of Abdominal CT for the Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[3]  Richard H Wiggins,et al.  Handheld computers in radiology. , 2003, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[4]  Aldo Badano,et al.  Noise in flat-panel displays with subpixel structure. , 2004, Medical physics.

[5]  Tchoyoson C. C. Lim,et al.  The iPad Tablet Computer for Mobile On-Call Radiology Diagnosis? Auditing Discrepancy in CT and MRI Reporting , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[6]  Michael G Evanoff,et al.  Flexible image evaluation: iPad versus secondary-class monitors for review of MR spinal emergency cases, a comparative study. , 2012, Academic radiology.

[7]  Kuan-Yu Chen,et al.  Efficiency improvement and image quality of organic light-emitting display by attaching cylindrical microlens arrays. , 2008, Optics express.

[8]  Michael D Abràmoff,et al.  VALIDATION OF TABLET-BASED EVALUATION OF COLOR FUNDUS IMAGES , 2012, Retina.

[9]  Jeong Hun Lee,et al.  An Assessment of the iPad 2 as a CT Teleradiology Tool Using Brain CT with Subtle Intracranial Hemorrhage Under Conventional Illumination , 2013, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[10]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Resolution and noise measurements of five CRT and LCD medical displays. , 2006, Medical physics.

[11]  David N Breslauer,et al.  Mobile Phone Based Clinical Microscopy for Global Health Applications , 2009, PloS one.

[12]  Yoshie Kodera,et al.  MTF measurement method for medical displays by using a bar-pattern image , 2006 .

[13]  Michael M. Maher,et al.  Emergency CT brain: preliminary interpretation with a tablet device: image quality and diagnostic performance of the Apple iPad , 2012, Emergency Radiology.

[14]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.

[15]  Yoshie Kodera,et al.  Analysis method of noise power spectrum for medical monochrome liquid crystal displays , 2008, Radiological physics and technology.

[16]  Elliot K. Fishman,et al.  The iPad as a mobile device for CT display and interpretation: diagnostic accuracy for identification of pulmonary embolism , 2012, Emergency Radiology.

[17]  Mark F McEntee,et al.  Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  Nicolas Chevrollier,et al.  Data and Image Transfer Using Mobile Phones to Strengthen Microscopy-Based Diagnostic Services in Low and Middle Income Country Laboratories , 2011, PloS one.

[19]  H. Goost,et al.  Image and Diagnosis Quality of X-Ray Image Transmission via Cell Phone Camera: A Project Study Evaluating Quality and Reliability , 2012, PloS one.

[20]  Aldo Badano,et al.  Visual methods for determining ambient illumination conditions when viewing medical images in mobile display devices , 2012 .

[21]  Evan P. Donoghue,et al.  Low-Voltage, Low-Power, Organic Light-Emitting Transistors for Active Matrix Displays , 2011, Science.