Derivation of an Observer Model Adapted to Irregular Signals Based on Convolution Channels

Anthropomorphic model observers are mathe- matical algorithms which are applied to images with the ultimate goal of predicting human signal detection and classification accuracy across varieties of backgrounds, image acquisitions and display conditions. A limitation of current channelized model observers is their inability to handle irregularly-shaped signals, which are common in clinical images, without a high number of directional channels. Here, we derive a new linear model observer based on convolution channels which we refer to as the “Filtered Channel observer” (FCO), as an extension of the channelized Hotelling observer (CHO) and the nonprewhitening with an eye filter (NPWE) observer. In analogy to the CHO, this linear model observer can take the form of a single template with an external noise term. To compare with human observers, we tested signals with irregular and asymmetrical shapes spanning the size of lesions down to those of microcalfications in 4-AFC breast tomosynthesis detection tasks, with three different contrasts for each case. Whereas humans uniformly outperformed conventional CHOs, the FCO observer outperformed humans for every signal with only one exception. Additive internal noise in the models allowed us to degrade model performance and match human performance. We could not match all the human performances with a model with a single internal noise component for all signal shape, size and contrast conditions. This suggests that either the internal noise might vary across signals or that the model cannot entirely capture the human detection strategy. However, the FCO model offers an efficient way to apprehend human observer performance for a non-symmetric signal.

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

[2]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Modeling Visual Detection Tasks in Correlated Image Noise with Linear Model Observers , 2000 .

[3]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Human vs model observers in anatomic backgrounds , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[4]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[5]  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.

[6]  H H Barrett,et al.  Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[7]  RussLL L. Ds Vnlos,et al.  SPATIAL FREQUENCY SELECTIVITY OF CELLS IN MACAQUE VISUAL CORTEX , 2022 .

[8]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Adaptive detection mechanisms in globally statistically nonstationary-oriented noise. , 2006, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[9]  Harold L. Kundel,et al.  Handbook of Medical Imaging, Volume 1. Physics and Psychophysics , 2000 .

[10]  H. Wilson,et al.  Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking , 1983, Vision Research.

[11]  D. Gabor,et al.  Theory of communication. Part 1: The analysis of information , 1946 .

[12]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. II. Effects of contrast gain control, background variations, and white noise. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[13]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Mass detection in breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a model observer study , 2009, Medical Imaging.

[14]  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.

[15]  A. Burgess Statistically defined backgrounds: performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[16]  Walter Huda,et al.  How do lesion size and random noise affect detection performance in digital mammography? , 2006, Academic radiology.

[17]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Frequency tuning of perceptual templates changes with noise magnitude. , 2009, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[18]  D J Field,et al.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[19]  Scott J. Daly,et al.  Visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[20]  D. G. Albrecht,et al.  Spatial frequency selectivity of cells in macaque visual cortex , 1982, Vision Research.