The efficiency of the human observer for lesion detection and localization in emission tomography.

For the medically relevant task of joint detection and localization of a signal (lesion) in an emission computed tomographic (ECT) image, it is of interest to measure the efficiency, defined as the relative task performance of a human observer versus that of an ideal observer. Efficiency studies can be used in system optimization, improving postprocessing (e.g., reconstruction) algorithms, deriving human-emulating model observers and computer-aided detection methods. Calculation of ideal observer performance for ECT is highly computationally complex. We can, however, compute ideal observer performance exactly using a simplified 'filtered-noise' model of ECT. This model results in images whose correlation structure, due to quantum noise, background variability and regularization, is similar to that of real ECT reconstructed images. A two-alternative forced choice test is used to obtain the performance of the human observers. We compare the efficiency of our joint detection-localization task with that of a corresponding signal-known-exactly (SKE) detection task. For the joint task, efficiency is low when the search tolerance is stringent. Efficiency for the joint task rises with signal intensity but is flat for the SKE task. For both tasks, efficiency peaks at a mid-range level of regularization corresponding to a particular noise-resolution tradeoff.

[1]  H. Barrett,et al.  Ideal-observer computation in medical imaging with use of Markov-chain Monte Carlo techniques. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[2]  Eric Clarkson,et al.  Efficiency of the human observer detecting random signals in random backgrounds. , 2005, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[3]  Robert M Lewitt,et al.  Small nodule detectability evaluation using a generalized scan-statistic model , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  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.

[5]  Norbert J. Pelc,et al.  The noise power spectrum in computed X-ray tomography. , 1978 .

[6]  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.

[7]  H H Barrett,et al.  Ideal versus human observer for long-tailed point spread functions: does deconvolution help? , 1991, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Jie Liu,et al.  Observer efficiency in discrimination tasks Simulating Malignant and benign breast lesions imaged with ultrasound , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[9]  Theodore G. Birdsall,et al.  Definitions of d′ and η as Psychophysical Measures , 1958 .

[10]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[11]  Michael A. King,et al.  Comparison of human- and model-observer LROC studies , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[12]  R. Swensson Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. , 1996, Medical physics.

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

[14]  Gene Gindi,et al.  Decision strategies that maximize the area under the LROC curve , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993 .

[16]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detectability with two noise components: anomalous masking effects. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.