Objective Assessment of Image Quality

Small-animal imaging has shown great promise in the areas of oncology,cardiology, molecular biology,drug discovery and development, and genetics [Green, 2001]. The demand for small-animal imaging has increased greatly with the recent advances in biomolecular research. Examples include functional genomics, functional protenomics, and molecular targeting of tumor cells or cells with other abnormalities. SPECT and PET imaging are of particular interest because these systems intrinsically image function instead of anatomy. Traditional thought has precluded SPECT and PET imaging of small animals because of the lack of resolution of these systems.In recent years at CGRI and other research facilities, numerous fast, high-resolution and high sensitivity SPECT imaging systems designed specifically for imaging small animals have been developed. These systems produce three-dimensional images of the distribution of radiotracers within the animal and, because these systems have no moving parts, dynamic studies can be readily performed. However, there are many components of such imaging systems that need to be optimized in order to best perform small-animal imaging studies.

[1]  F. Di Salle,et al.  Scintimammography with 99mTc-MIBI versus dynamic MRI for non-invasive characterization of breast masses , 2001, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[2]  H H Barrett,et al.  Hotelling trace criterion and its correlation with human-observer performance. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[3]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Stabilized estimates of Hotelling-observer detection performance in patient-structured noise , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[4]  Russell B. Makidon,et al.  The Structure of High Strehl Ratio Point-Spread Functions , 2003 .

[5]  Frédéric Champagnat,et al.  Point target detection and subpixel position estimation in optical imagery. , 2004, Applied optics.

[6]  Brent L. Ellerbroek,et al.  Wave optics propagation code for multiconjugate adaptive optics , 2002, SPIE Optics + Photonics.

[7]  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.

[8]  A. Réfrégier.  Shapelets: I. a method for image analysis , 2001, astro-ph/0105178.

[9]  W. Heindel,et al.  Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography. , 2002, Radiology.

[10]  Athanasios Papoulis,et al.  Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes , 1965 .

[11]  James P. Egan,et al.  Operating Characteristics, Signal Detectability, and the Method of Free Response , 1961 .

[12]  James P. Egan,et al.  Signal detection theory and ROC analysis , 1975 .

[13]  C E Metz,et al.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[14]  M. Hobson,et al.  A Bayesian approach to discrete object detection in astronomical data sets , 2002, astro-ph/0204457.

[15]  Jannick P. Rolland.  Synthesizing Anatomical Images for Image Understanding , 2000 .

[16]  Eric Clarkson,et al.  Efficiency of the human observer detecting random signals in random backgrounds. , 2005, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[17]  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.

[18]  Eric Clarkson,et al.  Experimental determination of object statistics from noisy images. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[19]  H. Hotelling.  The Generalization of Student’s Ratio , 1931 .

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

[21]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Maximum-likelihood methods in wavefront sensing: stochastic models and likelihood functions. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[22]  P. Lai,et al.  Diffusion-weighted MRI features of brain abscess and cystic or necrotic brain tumors: comparison with conventional MRI. , 2002, Clinical imaging.

[23]  C Abbey,et al.  Statistical texture synthesis of mammographic images with super-blob lumpy backgrounds. , 1999, Optics express.

[24]  Jean-Luc Starck,et al.  A combined approach for object detection and deconvolution , 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series.

[25]  J. Angel,et al.  Ground-based imaging of extrasolar planets using adaptive optics , 1994, Nature.

[26]  M. Bertero,et al.  A Fourier-based method for the restoration of chopped and nodded images , 2003 .

[27]  T. Brown,et al.  Detection of Planetary Transits Across a Sun-like Star , 1999, The Astrophysical journal.

[28]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993 .

[29]  Daniel Enard,et al.  Progress in ground-based optical telescopes , 1996 .

[30]  Eric E. Bloemhof,et al.  Behavior of Remnant Speckles in an Adaptively Corrected Imaging System , 2001 .

[31]  O. Guyon.  LIMITS OF ADAPTIVE OPTICS FOR HIGH-CONTRAST IMAGING , 2005, astro-ph/0505086.

[32]  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.

[33]  R. Swensson.  Unified measurement of observer performance in detecting and localizing target objects on images. , 1996, Medical physics.

[34]  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.

[35]  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.

[36]  M. Mayor,et al.  A Jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type star , 1995, Nature.

[37]  G. Sohie,et al.  Generalization of the matrix inversion lemma , 1986, Proceedings of the IEEE.

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

[39]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Hotelling trace criterion as a figure of merit for the optimization of imaging systems , 1986 .

[40]  Pierre Comon,et al.  Independent component analysis, A new concept? , 1994, Signal Process..

[41]  Armando Riccardi,et al.  CAOS Simulation Package 3.0: an IDL-based Tool for Adaptive Optics Systems Design and Simulations , 2001 .

[42]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  The “independent components” of natural scenes are edge filters , 1997, Vision Research.

[43]  Gene Gindi,et al.  Decision strategies that maximize the area under the LROC curve , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[44]  Brandon Dominic Gallas.  Signal detection in lumpy backgrounds , 2001 .

[45]  Gordon A. H. Walker,et al.  Speckle Noise and the Detection of Faint Companions , 1999 .

[46]  M. Edmunds,et al.  PHOTOMETRY WITH ADAPTIVE OPTICS : A FIRST GUIDE TO EXPECTED PERFORMANCE , 1998 .

[47]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Bayesian Detection of Random Signals on Random Backgrounds , 1997, IPMI.

[48]  H H Barrett,et al.  Approximations to ideal-observer performance on signal-detection tasks. , 2000, Applied optics.

[49]  Jeffrey A. Fessler,et al.  Penalized-likelihood estimators and noise analysis for randoms-precorrected PET transmission scans , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[50]  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.

[51]  Claude Aime,et al.  The Usefulness and Limits of Coronagraphy in the Presence of Pinned Speckles , 2004 .

[52]  C. Metz.  Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[53]  W C Eckelman,et al.  High resolution PET, SPECT and projection imaging in small animals. , 2001, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.

[54]  H. Barrett,et al.  Ideal-observer computation in medical imaging with use of Markov-chain Monte Carlo techniques. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[55]  Bruce A. Macintosh,et al.  Speckle Decorrelation and Dynamic Range in Speckle Noise-limited Imaging , 2002 .

[56]  C. Metz.  ROC Methodology in Radiologic Imaging , 1986, Investigative radiology.

[57]  C. Marois,et al.  Efficient Speckle Noise Attenuation in Faint Companion Imaging , 2000 .

[58]  R N Strickland,et al.  Channelized detection filters. , 1997, Optics letters.

[59]  Jan Grimm,et al.  Characterization of liver lesions with mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR imaging: multicenter study comparing MR and dual-phase spiral CT. , 2002, Radiology.

[60]  J. Hanley.  Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. , 1989, Critical reviews in diagnostic imaging.

[61]  P. Ábrahám,et al.  Small-scale structure of the galactic cirrus emission , 2002, astro-ph/0212094.

[62]  Harrison H. Barrett,et al.  Optimizing lens-coupled digital radiographic imaging systems based on model observers' performance , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.