Variations in performance of LCDs are still evident after DICOM gray-scale standard display calibration.

OBJECTIVE Quality assurance in medical imaging is directly beneficial to image quality. Diagnostic images are frequently displayed on secondary-class displays that have minimal or no regular quality assurance programs, and treatment decisions are being made from these display types. The purpose of this study is to identify the impact of calibration on physical and psychophysical performance of liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and the extent of potential variance across various types of LCDs. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three display types were evaluated from Hewlett Packard, Viewsonic, and NEC, which totalled 36 LCDs. These displays were calibrated to the DICOM gray scale standard display function using a VeriLum photometer and associated software under the same ambient room conditions. The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18 test patterns were used to measure minimum and maximum luminance, contrast ratios, luminance response, veiling glare (physical and psychophysical), psychophysical noise, spatial resolution, and display uniformity. RESULTS Improvements after calibration were noted in all display types for luminance response and psychophysical evaluations of veiling glare. Minimum luminance, contrast ratios, and display uniformity improvements were noted in two separate display types. The only significant reduction in performance was noted for physical evaluations of veiling glare. CONCLUSION The data presented show that calibration has a significant impact on the brightness and contrast of displays, and other display parameters are influenced by this. The amount of variation in performance that was still evident after calibration is of concern.

[1]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  Acceptance testing for softcopy displays , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[2]  M. Prokop,et al.  Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions , 2005, European Radiology.

[3]  Clinical practice at an advanced level: an introduction , 2003 .

[4]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  Perceptual linearization of video-display monitors for medical image presentation , 1994, Medical Imaging.

[5]  Hans Roehrig,et al.  Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of veiling glare. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[6]  Nicoletta Paruccini,et al.  Acceptance tests of diagnostic displays in a PACS system according to AAPM TG18. , 2006, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[7]  M. Buxton,et al.  The benefits of hospital-wide picture archiving and communication systems: a survey of clinical users of radiology services. , 1999, The British journal of radiology.

[8]  P. White,et al.  Guidelines and legal requirements which inform role expansion in radiography , 2002 .

[9]  Hans Roehrig,et al.  Calibration of medium-resolution monochrome cathode ray tube displays for the purpose of board examinations , 2010, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[10]  R. Price,et al.  Longitudinal changes in extended roles in radiography: A new perspective. , 2007, Radiography.

[11]  W. Pavlicek,et al.  Active matrix liquid crystal displays for clinical imaging: Comparison with cathode ray tube displays , 2000, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[12]  William R Hendee,et al.  Evolving and experimental technologies in medical imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[13]  A Badano,et al.  High-fidelity electronic display of digital radiographs. , 1999, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

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

[15]  Peter M. Steven,et al.  Practical aspects of grayscale calibration of display systems , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[16]  Mathias Prokop,et al.  Detectability of catheters on bedside chest radiographs: comparison between liquid crystal display and high-resolution cathode-ray tube monitors. , 2005, Radiology.

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

[18]  P. White,et al.  Role development for therapeutic radiographers in the public hospitals in Hong Kong , 2004 .

[19]  D S Brettle,et al.  A practical approach to soft-copy display consistency for PC-based review workstations. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[20]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of flat panel LCD primary class display performance based on AAPM TG 18 acceptance protocol. , 2004, Medical physics.

[21]  N. Paruccini,et al.  Grayscale calibration and quality assurance of diagnostic monitors in a PACS system , 2006, La radiologia medica.

[22]  David J Manning,et al.  Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  Hans Roehrig,et al.  Using a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of display phosphor. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[24]  Emily Seto,et al.  Image Quality Assurance of Soft Copy Display Systems , 2005, Journal of Digital Imaging.