Efficiency of the human observer for detecting a Gaussian signal at a known location in non-Gaussian distributed lumpy backgrounds.

A previous study [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A22, 3 (2005)] has shown that human efficiency for detecting a Gaussian signal at a known location in non-Gaussian distributed lumpy backgrounds is approximately 4%. This human efficiency is much less than the reported 40% efficiency that has been documented for Gaussian-distributed lumpy backgrounds [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A16, 694 (1999) and J. Opt. Soc. Am. A18, 473 (2001)]. We conducted a psychophysical study with a number of changes, specifically in display-device calibration and data scaling, from the design of the aforementioned study. Human efficiency relative to the ideal observer was found again to be approximately 5%. Our variance analysis indicates that neither scaling nor display made a statistically significant difference in human performance for the task. We conclude that the non-Gaussian distributed lumpy background is a major factor in our low human-efficiency results.

[1]  Theodore G. Birdsall,et al.  Definitions of d′ and η as Psychophysical Measures , 1958 .

[2]  D. Hubel,et al.  Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex , 1962, The Journal of physiology.

[3]  J. Robson.  Spatial and Temporal Contrast-Sensitivity Functions of the Visual System , 1966 .

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

[5]  J. A. Anderson,et al.  Associative learning of scene parameters from images. , 1987, Applied optics.

[6]  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.

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

[8]  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.

[9]  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.

[10]  A E Burgess,et al.  The Rose model, revisited. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[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]  A Badano,et al.  Method for measuring veiling glare in high-performance display devices. , 2000, Applied optics.

[13]  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.

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

[15]  Felix Wichmann,et al.  The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  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.

[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]  Aldo Badano,et al.  Comparison of conoscopic, telescopic, and goniometric methods for measuring angular emissions from medical liquid-crystal displays. , 2004, Applied optics.

[19]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Search for lesions in mammograms: statistical characterization of observer responses. , 2003, Medical physics.

[20]  Matthew A. Kupinski,et al.  Efficiency of human and model observers for signal-detection tasks in non-Gaussian distributed lumpy backgrounds , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[21]  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.

[22]  Fangfang Shen,et al.  Using Fisher information to approximate ideal-observer performance on detection tasks for lumpy-background images. , 2006, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[23]  Brandon D Gallas,et al.  One-shot estimate of MRMC variance: AUC. , 2006, Academic radiology.