Predicting detection performance with model observers: Fourier domain or spatial domain?

The use of Fourier domain model observer is challenged by iterative reconstruction (IR), because IR algorithms are nonlinear and IR images have noise texture different from that of FBP. A modified Fourier domain model observer, which incorporates nonlinear noise and resolution properties, has been proposed for IR and needs to be validated with human detection performance. On the other hand, the spatial domain model observer is theoretically applicable to IR, but more computationally intensive than the Fourier domain method. The purpose of this study is to compare the modified Fourier domain model observer to the spatial domain model observer with both FBP and IR images, using human detection performance as the gold standard. A phantom with inserts of various low contrast levels and sizes was repeatedly scanned 100 times on a third-generation, dual-source CT scanner at 5 dose levels and reconstructed using FBP and IR algorithms. The human detection performance of the inserts was measured via a 2-alternative-forced-choice (2AFC) test. In addition, two model observer performances were calculated, including a Fourier domain non-prewhitening model observer and a spatial domain channelized Hotelling observer. The performance of these two mode observers was compared in terms of how well they correlated with human observer performance. Our results demonstrated that the spatial domain model observer correlated well with human observers across various dose levels, object contrast levels, and object sizes. The Fourier domain observer correlated well with human observers using FBP images, but overestimated the detection performance using IR images.

[1]  K. Stierstorfer,et al.  Weighted FBP--a simple approximate 3D FBP algorithm for multislice spiral CT with good dose usage for arbitrary pitch. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Evaluating iterative reconstruction performance in computed tomography. , 2014, Medical physics.

[3]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Impact of number of repeated scans on model observer performance for a low-contrast detection task in CT , 2015, Medical Imaging.

[4]  J. Solomon,et al.  Characteristic image quality of a third generation dual-source MDCT scanner: Noise, resolution, and detectability. , 2015, Medical physics.

[5]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  A Practical Guide to Model Observers for Visual Detection in Synthetic and Natural Noisy Images , 2000 .

[6]  A. Burgess.  Visual perception studies and observer models in medical imaging. , 2011, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[7]  Grace J Gang,et al.  Analysis of Fourier-domain task-based detectability index in tomosynthesis and cone-beam CT in relation to human observer performance. , 2011, Medical physics.

[8]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Towards task-based assessment of CT performance: System and object MTF across different reconstruction algorithms. , 2012, Medical physics.

[9]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of volumetric noise and resolution performance for linear and nonlinear CT reconstruction methods. , 2014, Medical physics.

[10]  Jeffrey H Siewerdsen,et al.  Comparison of model and human observer performance for detection and discrimination tasks using dual-energy x-ray images. , 2008, Medical physics.

[11]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Prediction of human observer performance in a 2-alternative forced choice low-contrast detection task using channelized Hotelling observer: impact of radiation dose and reconstruction algorithms. , 2013, Medical physics.

[12]  C. McCollough,et al.  Technical Note: Measuring contrast- and noise-dependent spatial resolution of an iterative reconstruction method in CT using ensemble averaging. , 2015, Medical physics.

[13]  Shuai Leng,et al.  Correlation between model observer and human observer performance in CT imaging when lesion location is uncertain , 2012, Medical Imaging.