OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

| OPTICS, IMAGE SCIENCE, AND VISION

  • Vol. 17, Iss. 2 — Feb. 1, 2000
  • pp: 193–205

Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds

Francois O. Bochud, Craig K. Abbey, and Miguel P. Eckstein  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 17, Issue 2, pp. 193-205 (2000)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.17.000193


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (301 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Models of human visual detection have been successfully used in computer-generated noise. For these backgrounds, which are generally statistically stationary, model performance can be readily calculated by computing the index of detectability d from the noise power spectrum, the signal profile, and the model template. However, model observers are ultimately needed in more real backgrounds, which may be statistically nonstationary. We investigated different methods to calculate figures of merit for model observers in real backgrounds based on different assumptions about image stationarity. We computed performance of the nonprewhitening matched-filter observer with an eye filter on mammography and coronary angiography for an additive or a multiplicative signal. Performance was measured either by applying the model template to the images or by computing closed-form expressions with various assumptions about image stationarity. Results show first that the structured backgrounds investigated cannot be considered stationary. Second, traditional closed-form expressions of detectability calculated from the noise power spectra with the assumption of background stationarity lead to erroneous estimates of model performance. Third, the most accurate way of measuring model performances is by directly applying the model template on the images or by computing a closed-form expression that does not assume image stationarity.

© 2000 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(110.3000) Imaging systems : Image quality assessment
(330.1880) Vision, color, and visual optics : Detection
(330.4060) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision modeling
(330.7310) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision

Citation
Francois O. Bochud, Craig K. Abbey, and Miguel P. Eckstein, "Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. III. Calculation of figures of merit for model observers in statistically nonstationary backgrounds," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17, 193-205 (2000)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-17-2-193


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset

References

  1. A. Rose, Vision, Human and Electronics (Plenum, New York, 1973).
  2. D. O. North, “Analysis of the factors which determine signal-noise discrimination in pulsed carrier systems,” RCA Tech. Rep. PTR6C, 1943, reprinted in Proc. IRE 51, 1016–1028 (1963).
  3. A. E. Burgess, “The Rose model, revisited,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 633–646 (1999).
  4. A. E. Burgess, R. F. Wagner, R. J. Jennings, and H. B. Barlow, “Efficiency of human visual signal determination,” Nature (London) 214, 93–94 (1981).
  5. K. J. Myers, H. H. Barrett, M. C. Borgstrom, D. D. Patton, and G. W. Seeley, “Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 1752–1759 (1985).
  6. L. N. D. Loo, K. Doi, and C. E. Metz, “A comparison of physical image quality indices and observer performance in the radiographic detection of nylon beads,” Phys. Med. Biol. 29, 837–856 (1984).
  7. A. E. Burgess, X. Li, and C. K. Abbey, “Visual signal detectability with two noise components: anomalous masking effects,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2420–2442 (1997).
  8. A. E. Burgess, “Visual signal detection with two-component noise: low-pass spectrum effect,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 694–704 (1999).
  9. H. H. Barrett, J. Yao, J. P. Rolland, and K. J. Myers, “Model observers for assessment of image quality,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90, 9758–9765 (1993).
  10. J. P. Rolland and H. H. Barrett, “Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 9, 649–658 (1992).
  11. A. J. Ahumada and B. L. Beard, “Object detection in a noisy scene,” in Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, B. E. Rogowitz and J. P. Allebach, eds., Proc. SPIE 2657, 190–199 (1996).
  12. G. Revesz, H. L. Kundel, and M. A. Graber, “The influence of structured noise on the detection of radiologic abnormalities,” Am. J. Roentgenol. 9, 479–486 (1974).
  13. S. E. Seltzer, P. F. Judy, R. G. Swensson, K. H. Chan, and R. D. Nawfel, “Flattening of the contrast-detail curve for large lesions on liver CT images,” Med. Phys. 21, 1547–1555 (1994).
  14. M. P. Eckstein, A. J. Ahumada, and A. B. Watson, “Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. II. Effects of contrast gain control, background variations, and white noise,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2406–2419 (1997).
  15. H. H. Barrett, C. K. Abbey, B. Gallas, and M. P. Eckstein, “Stabilized estimates of Hotelling-observer detection performance in patient structured noise,” in Medical Imaging 1998: Image Perception, H. L. Kundel, eds., Proc. SPIE 3340, 27–43 (1998).
  16. M. P. Eckstein, A. J. Ahumada, and A. B. Watson, “Image discrimination models predict signal detection in natural medical image backgrounds,” in Human Vision and Electronic Imaging II, B. E. Rogowitz and T. N. Pappas, eds., Proc. SPIE 3016, 44–56 (1997).
  17. M. P. Eckstein, C. K. Abbey, F. O. Bochud, J. L. Bartroff, and J. S. Whiting, “Effect of image compression in model and human observers,” in Medical Imaging 1999: Image Perception and Performance, E. A. Krupinski, ed., Proc. SPIE 3663, 243–252 (1999).
  18. M. P. Eckstein, C. K. Abbey, and F. O. Bochud, “Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. IV. Figures of merit for model performance in multiple-alternative forced-choice detection tasks with correlated responses,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17, 206–217 (2000).
  19. R. F. Wagner and D. G. Brown, “Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems,” Phys. Med. Biol. 30, 489–518 (1985).
  20. International Commission for Radiation Units (ICRU) Report, “Medical imaging—the assessment of image quality,” (ICRU, Bethesda, Md.), 1996.
  21. In this paper we restricted ourselves to tasks where each possible signal location of the multiple-alternative forced-choice (MAFC) experiment is within a different independent sample background. This restriction guarantees the statistical independence of the model responses. Violations of statistical independence in model responses such as might occur in within-image MAFC tasks is investigated in detail in Paper IV in this series.18
  22. J. P. Rolland, A. Goon, E. Clarkson, and L. Yu, “Synthesis of biomedical tissue,” in Medical Imaging 1998: Image Perception, H. L. Kundel, ed., Proc. SPIE 3340, 85–90 (1998).
  23. H. H. Barrett, “Objective assessment of image quality: effects of quantum noise and object variability,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 1266–1278 (1990).
  24. F. O. Bochud, J. F. Valley, F. R. Verdun, C. Hessler, and P. Schnyder, “Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds,” Med. Phys. 26, 1365–1370 (1999).
  25. B. Picinbono, Random Signals and Systems (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1993).
  26. The concept of stationarity is usually defined more stringently. For instance, a random function g(r) is said to be strictly stationary if all its statistical properties are invariant to any translation of the coordinate system. This means that the random functions g(r) and g(r+r0) have the same pdf for any r0. Because the full pdf of a random function is often difficult (or impossible) to compute, a wider definition limited to the mean and the covariance of the random function is also used. A random process g(r) is said to be second-order (or wide-sense, or weakly) stationary if it meets the three conditions of semistationarity but for the whole 2D space. Because any real image is defined within a finite area, the concepts of strict stationarity and second-order stationarity cannot be applied to medical images.
  27. R. F. Quick, “A vector-magnitude model of contrast detection,” Kybernetik 16, 65–67 (1974).
  28. J. M. Foley, “Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: masking experiments require a new model,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 1710–1719 (1994).
  29. A. B. Watson and J. Solomon, “A model of contrast gain control in human vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2379–2391 (1997).
  30. J. A. Swets and R. M. Pickett, Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems: Methods from Signal Detection Theory (Academic, New York, 1982).
  31. A. E. Burgess, “Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced-choice observer performance measurement methods,” Med. Phys. 22, 643–655 (1995).
  32. For a 2AFC experiment, the response variances do not have to be equal to keep the following result valid.
  33. A. E. Burgess and H. Ghandeharian, “Visual signal detection. II. Signal-location identification,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1, 906–910 (1984).
  34. M. P. Eckstein and J. S. Whiting, “Visual signal detection in structured backgrounds. I. Effect of number of possible spatial locations and signal contrast,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13, 1777–1787 (1996).
  35. F. O. Bochud, C. K. Abbey, J. L. Bartroff, D. J. Vodopich, and M. P. Eckstein, “Effect of the number of locations in MAFC experiments performed with mammograms,” presented at the Far West Image Perception Conference, Nakoda Lodge, Alberta, Canada, May 20–30, 1999.
  36. P. F. Judy and R. G. Swensson, “Display thresholding of images and observer detection performance,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 954–965 (1987).
  37. R. F. Wagner, D. G. Brown, and M. S. Pastel, “Application of information theory to the assessment of computed tomography,” Med. Phys. 6, 83–94 (1979).
  38. P. R. Moran, “A physical statistics theory for detectability of a target signal in noisy images. I. Mathematical background, empirical review, and development of theory,” Med. Phys. 9, 401–413 (1982).
  39. C. Hessler, C. Depeursinge, M. Grecescu, Y. Pochon, S. Raimondi, and J. F. Valley, “Objective assessment of mammography systems; Part I: Method,” Radiology 156, 215–219 (1985).
  40. K. J. Myers, J. P. Rolland, H. H. Barrett, and R. F. Wagner, “Aperture optimization for emission imaging: effect of spatially varying background,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 1279–1293 (1990).
  41. L. Desponds, C. Depeursinge, M. Grecescu, C. Hessler, A. Samiri, and J. F. Valley, “Image quality index (IQI) for screen-film mammography,” Phys. Med. Biol. 36, 19–33 (1991).
  42. M. S. Chesters, “Human visual perception and ROC methodology in medical imaging,” Phys. Med. Biol. 37, 1433–1476 (1992).
  43. A. E. Burgess, “Statistically defined backgrounds: performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 1237–1242 (1994).
  44. The Hotelling model, when it is estimated from samples, is often referred to as the Fisher discriminant (see, for instance, Ref. 15).
  45. M. A. Webster and E. Miyahara, “Contrast adaptation and the spatial structure of natural images,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 2355–2366 (1997).
  46. F. O. Bochud, F. R. Verdun, C. Hessler, and J. F. Valley, “Detectability on radiological images: the effect of the anatomical noise,” in Medical Imaging 1995: Image Perception, H. L. Kundel, ed., Proc. SPIE 2436, 156–164 (1995).
  47. F. O. Bochud, C. K. Abbey, and M. P. Eckstein, “Further investigation of the effect of phase spectrum on visual detection in structured backgrounds,” in Medical Imaging 1999: Image Perception and Performance, E. A. Krupinski, ed., Proc. SPIE 3663, 273–281 (1999).
  48. A. E. Burgess, “Mammographic structure: data preparation and spatial statistics analysis,” in Medical Imaging 1999: Image Processing, K. M. Hanson, ed., Proc. SPIE 3661, 642–653 (1999).
  49. M. P. Eckstein, C. K. Abbey, and J. S. Whiting, “Human vs model observers in anatomic backgrounds,” in Medical Imaging 1998: Image Perception, H. L. Kundel, ed., Proc. SPIE 3340, 15–26 (1998).
  50. B. Julesz, “Experiments in the visual perception of texture,” Sci. Am. 232, 34–43 (1975).
  51. The two-point pdf is, by definition, the pdf of any pair of image points. Therefore the covariance contains only a part of the information contained in the two-point pdf.
  52. J. C. Dainty and R. Shaw, Image Science (Academic, London, 1974).
  53. A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991).
  54. Because this way of generating images induces wraparound effects, the images are actually generated on a larger array at 256×256 pixels and then cropped to 128×128 pixels.

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited