The effect of non-linear human visual system components on linear model observers

Linear model observers have been used successfully to predict human performance in clinically relevant visual tasks for a variety of backgrounds. On the other hand, there has been another family of models used to predict human visual detection of signals superimposed on one of two identical backgrounds (masks). These masking models usually include a number of non-linear components in the channels that reflect properties of the firing of cells in the primary visual cortex (V1). The relationship between these two traditions of models has not been extensively investigated in the context of detection in noise. In this paper, we evaluated the effect of including some of these non-linear components into a linear channelized Hotelling observer (CHO), and the associated practical implications for medical image quality evaluation. In particular, we evaluate whether the rank order evaluation of two compression algorithms (JPEG vs. JPEG 2000) is changed by inclusion of the non-linear components. The results show: a) First that the simpler linear CHO model observer outperforms CHO model with the nonlinear components investigated. b) The rank order of model observer performance for the compression algorithms did not vary when the non-linear components were included. For the present task, the results suggest that the addition of the physiologically based channel non-linearities to a channelized Hotelling might add complexity to the model observers without great impact on medical image quality evaluation.

[1]  S Marcelja,et al.  Mathematical description of the responses of simple cortical cells. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[2]  Patrick C. Teo,et al.  Perceptual image distortion , 1994, Electronic Imaging.

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

[4]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detection. II. Signal-location identification. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[5]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Derivation of a detectability index for correlated responses in multiple-alternative forced-choice experiments. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[6]  F. Campbell,et al.  Optical quality of the human eye , 1966, The Journal of physiology.

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

[8]  Jeffrey Lubin,et al.  The use of psychophysical data and models in the analysis of display system performance , 1993 .

[9]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Why do anatomic backgrounds reduce lesion detectability? , 1998, Investigative radiology.

[10]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Model observers for signal-known-statistically tasks (SKS) , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[11]  A E Burgess Visual signal detection with two-component noise: low-pass spectrum effects. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[12]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. I. Effect of number of possible spatial locations and signal contrast. , 1996, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[13]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[14]  Miguel P. Eckstein,et al.  Automated optimization of JPEG 2000 encoder options based on model observer performance for detecting variable signals in X-ray coronary angiograms , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[15]  M. Eckstein,et al.  Simulating coronary arteries in x-ray angiograms. , 2000, Medical physics.

[16]  H. Barrett,et al.  Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[17]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Validating the use of channels to estimate the ideal linear observer. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[18]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: masking experiments require a new model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[19]  M Eckstein,et al.  Observer performance for JPEG vs. Wavelet image compression of x-ray coronary angiograms. , 1999, Optics express.

[20]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Lesion detection in structured noise. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[21]  H.H. Barrett,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993, 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[22]  Jie Yao,et al.  Predicting human performance by a channelized Hotelling observer model , 1992, Optics & Photonics.

[23]  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.

[24]  A. B. Bonds Role of Inhibition in the Specification of Orientation Selectivity of Cells in the Cat Striate Cortex , 1989, Visual Neuroscience.

[25]  W. Geisler,et al.  Ideal discriminators in spatial vision: two-point stimuli. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[26]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[27]  D. Heeger Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex , 1992, Visual Neuroscience.

[28]  Jay Bartroff,et al.  Automated computer evaluation and optimization of image compression of x-ray coronary angiograms for signal known exactly detection tasks. , 2003, Optics express.

[29]  J A Solomon,et al.  Model of visual contrast gain control and pattern masking. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.