Search for lesions in mammograms: statistical characterization of observer responses.

We investigate human performance for visually detecting simulated microcalcifications and tumors embedded in x-ray mammograms as a function of signal contrast and the number of possible signal locations. Our results show that performance degradation with an increasing number of locations is well approximated by signal detection theory (SDT) with the usual Gaussian assumption. However, more stringent statistical analysis finds a departure from Gaussian assumptions for the detection of microcalcifications. We investigated whether these departures from the SDT Gaussian model could be accounted for by an increase in human internal response correlations arising from the image-pixel correlations present in 1/f spectrum backgrounds and/or observer internal response distributions that departed from the Gaussian assumption. Results were consistent with a departure from the Gaussian response distributions and suggested that the human observer internal responses were more compact than the Gaussian distribution. Finally, we conducted a free search experiment where the signal could appear anywhere within the image. Results show that human performance in a multiple-alternative forced-choice experiment can be used to predict performance in the clinically realistic free search experiment when the investigator takes into account the search area and the observers' inherent spatial imprecision to localize the targets.

[1]  T. Cohn,et al.  Effect of large spatial uncertainty on foveal luminance increment detectability. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[2]  Rick Reed,et al.  Effect of spatial frequency content of the background on visual detection of a known target , 1992, Medical Imaging.

[3]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detection. II. Signal-location identification. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

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

[5]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. I. Effect of number of possible spatial locations and signal contrast. , 1996, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[6]  Francis R. Verdun,et al.  Detectability of radiological images: the influence of anatomical noise , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[7]  A Burgess Effect of quantization noise on visual signal detection in noisy images. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[8]  H Ghandeharian,et al.  Visual signal detection. I. Ability to use phase information. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[9]  W. P. Tanner PHYSIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF PSYCHOPHYSICAL DATA * , 1961, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[10]  R G Swensson,et al.  Display thresholding of images and observer detection performance. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[11]  D L Wilson,et al.  Effects of motion blurring in x-ray fluoroscopy. , 1998, Medical physics.

[12]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Derivation of a detectability index for correlated responses in multiple-alternative forced-choice experiments. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[13]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Why do anatomic backgrounds reduce lesion detectability? , 1998, Investigative radiology.

[14]  T Cohn,et al.  Detection of a luminance increment: effect of temporal uncertainty. , 1981, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[15]  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.

[16]  H. Barrett,et al.  Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[17]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

[18]  Keinosuke Fukunaga,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition , 1972 .

[19]  G. A. Hay,et al.  Quantitative relation between detectability and noise power , 1983 .

[20]  R. Aufrichtig,et al.  Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. , 1999, Medical physics.

[21]  H H Barrett,et al.  Ideal versus human observer for long-tailed point spread functions: does deconvolution help? , 1991, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[23]  Sharon L. Weinberg,et al.  Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 1990 .

[24]  Arthur E. Burgess,et al.  Comparison of non-prewhitening and Hotelling observer models , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[25]  R D Nawfel,et al.  Contrast-detail curves for liver CT. , 1992, Medical physics.

[26]  R G Swensson,et al.  Flattening of the contrast-detail curve for large lesions on liver CT images. , 1994, Medical physics.

[27]  E. Samei,et al.  Simulation of subtle lung nodules in projection chest radiography. , 1997, Radiology.

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

[29]  C. Herrmann,et al.  Bildrauschen und Diagnose von Rundherden in Thoraxaufnahmen , 1996 .

[30]  N Brady,et al.  Spatial Scale Interactions and Image Statistics , 1997, Perception.

[31]  M P Eckstein,et al.  Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. IV. Figures of merit for model performance in multiple-alternative forced-choice detection tasks with correlated responses. , 2000, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[32]  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.

[33]  H. Kundel,et al.  The influence of structured noise on the detection of radiologic abnormalities. , 1974, Investigative radiology.

[34]  H. Kundel,et al.  Lesion conspicuity, structured noise, and film reader error. , 1976, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[35]  J. H. van Hateren,et al.  Modelling the Power Spectra of Natural Images: Statistics and Information , 1996, Vision Research.