The perception of breast cancers-a spatial frequency analysis of what differentiates missed from reported cancers

The primary detector of breast cancer is the human eye. Radiologists read mammograms by mapping exogenous and endogenous factors, which are based on the image and observer, respectively, into observer-based decisions. These decisions rely on an internal schema that contains a representation of possible malignant and benign findings. Thus, to understand the hits and misses made by the radiologists, it is important to model the interactions between the measurable image-based elements contained in the mammogram and the decisions made. The image-based elements can be of two types, i.e., areas that attracted the visual attention of the radiologist, but did not yield a report, and areas where the radiologist indicated the presence of an abnormal finding. In this way, overt and covert decisions are made when reading a mammogram. In order to model this decision-making process, we use a system that is based upon the processing done by the human visual system, which decomposes the areas under scrutiny in elements of different sizes and orientations. In our system, this decomposition is done using wavelet packets (WPs). Nonlinear features are then extracted from the WP coefficients, and an artificial neural network is trained to recognize the patterns of decisions made by each radiologist. Afterwards, the system is used to predict how the radiologist will respond to visually selected areas in new mammogram cases.

[1]  H L Kundel,et al.  Visual search patterns and experience with radiological images. , 1972, Radiology.

[2]  R F Hess,et al.  Spatial-frequency tuning of visual contour integration. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[3]  Claudia Mello-Thoms,et al.  The perception of breast cancer: what differentiates missed from reported cancers in mammography? , 2002, Academic radiology.

[4]  S. Mallat A wavelet tour of signal processing , 1998 .

[5]  Roger J. Watt Some speculations on the role of texture processing in visual perception , 1995 .

[6]  James A. Freeman,et al.  Simulating neural networks - with Mathematica , 1993 .

[7]  Trygve Randen,et al.  Filtering for Texture Classification: A Comparative Study , 1999, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[8]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Computer-displayed eye position as a visual aid to pulmonary nodule interpretation. , 1990, Investigative radiology.

[9]  E. Conant,et al.  How experience and training influence mammography expertise. , 1999, Academic radiology.

[10]  H L Kundel,et al.  Psychophysical studies of detection errors in chest radiology. , 1977, Radiology.

[11]  H L Kundel,et al.  Searching for bone fractures: a comparison with pulmonary nodule search. , 1994, Academic radiology.

[12]  Trygve Randen,et al.  Texture segmentation using filters with optimized energy separation , 1999, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[13]  Tanveer F. Syeda-Mahmood,et al.  Detecting Perceptually Salient Texture Regions in Images , 1999, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[14]  V. Manahilov,et al.  Energy model for contrast detection: spatiotemporal characteristics of threshold vision , 1999, Biological Cybernetics.

[15]  Paul Scheunders,et al.  Statistical texture characterization from discrete wavelet representations , 1999, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[16]  E. Krupinski,et al.  Searching for lung nodules. Visual dwell indicates locations of false-positive and false-negative decisions. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[17]  Kathleen M. Harris,et al.  Analysis of False‐Negative Cancer Cases Identified with a Mammography Audit , 1999, The breast journal.

[18]  Stephen A. Engel,et al.  Linearity across spatial frequency in object recognition , 1998, Vision Research.

[19]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  Godfried T. Toussaint,et al.  The use of context in pattern recognition , 1978, Pattern Recognit..

[21]  B. Julesz Dialogues on Perception , 1994 .

[22]  C. D. HAAGENSEN,et al.  Diseases of the Breast , 1972 .

[23]  C.-C. Jay Kuo,et al.  Texture analysis and classification with tree-structured wavelet transform , 1993, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[24]  G. Edgar,et al.  Shifts in the perceived location of a blurred edge increase with contrast , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  G. Tourassi Journey toward computer-aided diagnosis: role of image texture analysis. , 1999, Radiology.

[26]  Yu-Ping Wang,et al.  Image representations using multiscale differential operators , 1999, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[27]  M. Victor Wickerhauser,et al.  Adapted wavelet analysis from theory to software , 1994 .

[28]  A. Hillstrom Repetition effects in visual search , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  C. Mello-Thoms Perception of breast cancer: eye-position analysis of mammogram interpretation. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[30]  Dov Sagi,et al.  The psychophysics of texture segmentation , 1995 .

[31]  Atam P. Dhawan,et al.  Analysis of mammographic microcalcifications using gray-level image structure features , 1996, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[32]  Shaul Hochstein,et al.  How early is early vision? Evidence from perceptual learning , 1993 .

[33]  H L Kundel,et al.  A perceptually tempered display for digital mammograms. , 1999, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[34]  H L Kundel,et al.  Contrast gradient and the detection of lung nodules. , 1979, Investigative radiology.

[35]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Detection of lesions in mammographic structure , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[36]  Stanley M. Dunn,et al.  An analysis of perceptual errors in reading mammograms using quasi-local spatial frequency spectra , 2001, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[37]  Robin N. Strickland,et al.  Object detection using subband decomposition , 1998 .

[38]  M. Moskowitz,et al.  Breast cancer missed by mammography. , 1979, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.