Verification of DICOM GSDF in Complex Backgrounds

While previous research has determined the contrast detection threshold in medical images, it has focused on uniform backgrounds, has not used calibrated monitors, or has involved a low number of readers. With complex clinical images, how the Grayscale Standard Display Function (GSDF) affects the detection threshold and whether the median background intensity shift has been minimized by GSDF remains unknown. We set out to determine if the median background affected the detection of a low-contrast object in a clustered lumpy background, which simulated a mammography image, and to define the contrast detection threshold for these complex images. Clustered lumpy background images were created of different median intensities and disks of varying contrasts were inserted. A reader study was performed with 17 readers of varying skill level who scored with a five-point confidence scale whether a disk was present. The results were analyzed using reader operating characteristic (ROC) methodology. Contingency tables were used to determine the contrast detection threshold. No statistically significant difference was seen in the area under the ROC curve across all of the backgrounds. Contrast detection fell below 50 % between +3 and +2 gray levels. Our work supports the conclusion that Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine GSDF calibrated monitors do perceptually linearize detection performance across shifts in median background intensity. The contrast detection threshold was determined to be +3 gray levels above the background for an object of 1° visual angle.

[1]  Oleg S. Pianykh,et al.  Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) , 2017, Radiopaedia.org.

[2]  Jihong Wang,et al.  A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems , 2009, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[3]  L. Arend,et al.  Contrast perception across changes in luminance and spatial frequency. , 1996, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[4]  K S Berbaum,et al.  Monte Carlo validation of a multireader method for receiver operating characteristic discrete rating data: factorial experimental design. , 1998, Academic radiology.

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

[6]  Jyrki Rovamo,et al.  Modelling the dependence of contrast sensitivity on grating area and spatial frequency , 1993, Vision Research.

[7]  C. Metz,et al.  Visual detection and localization of radiographic images. , 1975, Radiology.

[8]  M. Ruschin,et al.  A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[9]  Tamara Miner Haygood,et al.  The "memory effect" for repeated radiologic observations. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  J Nachmias,et al.  Letter: Grating contrast: discrimination may be better than detection. , 1974, Vision research.

[11]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Mass discrimination in mammography , 2003 .

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

[13]  E. Peli,et al.  Suprathreshold contrast perception across differences in mean luminance: effects of stimulus size, dichoptic presentation, and length of adaptation. , 1995, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[14]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. , 2005, Medical physics.

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

[16]  D G Pelli,et al.  Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[17]  Jun Xu,et al.  Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS. , 2009, Medical physics.

[18]  Peter G. J. Barten,et al.  Formula for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye , 2003, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

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

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

[21]  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.

[22]  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.

[23]  Stephen L Hillis,et al.  Power estimation for the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method. , 2004, Academic radiology.

[24]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Contrast masking in human vision. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

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

[26]  Francine Jacobson,et al.  Mass discrimination in mammography: experiments using hybrid images. , 2003, Academic radiology.