Volumetric detection tasks with varying complexity: human observer performance

This study explores detection performance trends of human observers with respect to two parameters: task complexity determined by the frequency content of background and signal, and image viewing mode: singleslice (ss) versus multi-slice (ms) stack-browsing image presentation. The images are 3D correlated Gaussian noise with a 3D Gaussian signal centered in the image volume. To vary task complexity, we consider three different noise kernels while keeping the signal spread constant across all images. In ss mode, only the central slice of the volume is presented to the observer, while in ms mode all slices are available. All human readings are conducted in a controlled viewing environment on a 5MP digital mammography medical display. Overall, in line with the literature, we find that human performance increases in ms relative to ss image presentation mode. Furthermore, our experiments indicate that the extent of difference between ms and ss performance is influenced by the properties of image data (level of task complexity): the difference in performance increases (from ΔAUC= 0.14 to ΔAUC= 0.30) as the difference in the frequency content of the signal and the background increases. In other words, the benefit of having additional slices available in ms mode is larger for lower-complexity tasks. Future studies shall focus on comparing the results of the present study to the existing model observers for volumetric images, ultimately aiming to design an anthropomorphic model observer for volumetric detection tasks.

[1]  P.H. Pretorius,et al.  A comparison of human and model observers in multislice LROC studies , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[2]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[3]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Foundations of Image Science , 2003, J. Electronic Imaging.

[4]  T. Cornsweet,et al.  The staircrase-method in psychophysics. , 1962, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  A comparison of the Dorfman–Berbaum–Metz and Obuchowski–Rockette methods for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) data , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  Wilfried Philips,et al.  Reader behavior in a detection task using single- and multislice image datasets , 2012, Medical Imaging.

[7]  Stephen L Hillis,et al.  Monte Carlo validation of the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method using normalized pseudovalues and less data-based model simplification. , 2005, Academic radiology.

[8]  Ewout Vansteenkiste,et al.  Channelized Hotelling observers for the assessment of volumetric imaging data sets. , 2011, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[9]  Stephen L Hillis,et al.  Recent developments in the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz procedure for multireader ROC study analysis. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[10]  Jovan G. Brankov,et al.  Optimization of the internal noise models for channelized Hotelling observer , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[11]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  Volumetric model and human observer comparisons of tumor detection for whole-body positron emission tomography. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[12]  Ronald J. Jaszczak,et al.  Using the Hotelling observer on multi-slice and multi-view simulated SPECT myocardial images , 2001 .

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

[14]  Tom Kimpe,et al.  15.3: Specificities of a Psycho‐Physical Test Room Dedicated for Medical Display Applications , 2007 .

[15]  B. Julesz,et al.  Spatial-frequency masking in vision: critical bands and spread of masking. , 1972, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[16]  H H Barrett,et al.  Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[17]  M A García-Pérez,et al.  Yes-No Staircases with Fixed Step Sizes: Psychometric Properties and Optimal Setup , 2001, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[18]  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.

[19]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  A lesion detection observer study comparing 2-dimensional versus fully 3-dimensional whole-body PET imaging protocols. , 2004, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[20]  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.

[21]  Peter G. J. Barten,et al.  Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its e ects on image quality , 1999 .

[22]  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.

[23]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Evaluation of internal noise methods for Hotelling observer models. , 2007, Medical physics.

[24]  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.

[25]  S. Hillis A comparison of denominator degrees of freedom methods for multiple observer ROC analysis , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[26]  P.H. Pretorius,et al.  Single-slice versus multi-slice display for human-observer lesion-detection studies , 1999, 1999 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record. 1999 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (Cat. No.99CH37019).