Detection-theoretic evaluation in digital radiography and optical tomography

12 This dissertation explores the apphcation of objective assessment of image quality (OAIQ) to hardware evaluation for both linear shift-variant and nonlinear imaging systems. We define our task to be the detection of a known signal in either a uniform or structured background. In particular, we study the detection of signals in digital radiography and optical tomography. In digital radiography, current figures of merit are based on stationarity assump­ tions on the data. The Hotelling observer as we compute it does not make such assumptions. We quantify, from a detection-theoretic perspective, the errors incurred by using stationarity assumptions for nonstationary digital data. We find that by using Monte Carlo methods, the Hotelling observer carries over to the nonlinear setting, and we use it to study spatially varying detectability in optical tomography. In optical tomography there are several data types that can be used to detect signals. Using our methodology, we quantify the information content of those data types. Our results show that information content depends on the type of signal and background as well as how deep the signal is in the tissue. This type of analysis is meant to guide experimental techniques to be suited for the desired detection task.

[1]  John A. Swets,et al.  Evaluation of diagnostic systems : methods from signal detection theory , 1982 .

[2]  Craig Kendall Abbey,et al.  Assessment of reconstructed images , 1998 .

[3]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Correlated point processes in radiological imaging , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[4]  Simon R. Arridge,et al.  Spatially varying detectability for optical tomography , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[5]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Lesion detection in digital mammograms , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[6]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality. II. Fisher information, Fourier crosstalk, and figures of merit for task performance. , 1995, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[7]  James T. Dobbins Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems , 2000 .

[8]  H H Barrett,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[9]  B. Tromberg,et al.  Non-invasive measurements of breast tissue optical properties using frequency-domain photon migration. , 1997, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[10]  John A. Rowlands,et al.  Direct-conversion flat-panel x-ray imaging: reduction of noise by presampling filtration , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[11]  K D Paulsen,et al.  Contrast-detail analysis for detection and characterization with near-infrared diffuse tomography. , 2000, Medical physics.

[12]  H. Barrett,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality. III. ROC metrics, ideal observers, and likelihood-generating functions. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[13]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Megalopinakophobia: its symptoms and cures , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[14]  Jannick P. Rolland,et al.  Factors influencing lesion detection in medical imaging. , 1990 .

[15]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[16]  J A Rowlands,et al.  Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: theoretical analysis of detective quantum efficiency. , 1997, Medical physics.