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. 2, Iss. 10 — Oct. 1, 1985
  • pp: 1752–1759

Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging

K. J. Myers, H. H. Barrett, M. C. Borgstrom, D. D. Patton, and G. W. Seeley  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 2, Issue 10, pp. 1752-1759 (1985)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.2.001752


View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (966 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Pixel signal-to-noise ratio is one accepted measure of image quality for predicting observer performance in medical imaging. We have found, however, that images with equal pixel signal-to-noise ratio (SNRp) but different correlation properties give quite different observer-performance measures for a simple detection experiment. The SNR at the output of an ideal detector with the ability to prewhiten the noise is also a poor predictor of human performance for disk signals in high-pass noise. We have found constant observer efficiencies for humans relative to the performance of a nonprewhitening detector for this task.

© 1985 Optical Society of America

History
Original Manuscript: January 21, 1985
Manuscript Accepted: May 20, 1985
Published: October 1, 1985

Citation
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)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-2-10-1752


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. R. F. Wagner, K. E. Weaver, E. W. Denny, R. G. Bostrom, “Toward a unified view of radiological imaging systems, Part 1: noiseless images,” Med. Phys. 1, 11–24 (1974). [CrossRef]
  2. A. E. Burgess, R. F. Wagner, R. J. Jennings, “Human signal detection performance for noisy medical images,” in Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society International Workshop on Medical Imaging (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1982).
  3. A. E. Burgess, R. F. Wagner, R. J. Jennings, “On SNR requirements for medical images,” in Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society International Symposium on Medical Imaging and Image Interpretation (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1982).
  4. S. M. Pizer, A. E. Todd-Pokropek, “Noise character in processed scintigrams,” in Proceedings of the IVth International Conference on Information Processing in Scintigraphy (Commissariat à l′Energie Atomique, Orsay, France, 1975).
  5. P. F. Judy, R. G. Swensson, “Lesion detection and signal-to-noise ratio in CT images,” Med. Phys. 8, 13–23 (1981). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. P. A. Guignard, “A comparative method based on ROC analysis for the quantitation of observer performance in scintigraphy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 27, 1163–1176 (1982). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. K. M. Hanson, “Detectability in the presence of computed tomographic reconstruction noise,” Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 127, 304–312 (1977).
  8. H. H. Barrett, W. Swindell, Radiological Imaging: The Theory of Image Formation, Detection, and Processing (Academic, New York, 1981), Vols. I and II.
  9. B. Julesz, “Experiments in the visual perception of texture,” Sci. Am. 232, 34–43 (1975). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. G. W. Seeley, M. C. Borgstrom, J. Mazzeo, “A general interactive computer program for running signal detection experiments,” Behavior Res. Methods Instrum. 4, 555–556 (1982). [CrossRef]
  11. D. B. Green, J. A. Swets, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Wiley, New York, 1966).
  12. H. L. Van Trees, Detection, Estimation, and Modulation Theory (Wiley, New York, 1968), Vols. I–III.
  13. C. E. Metz, “Empirical evidence of imaging procedures in terms of information content and receiver operating characteristic curves,” J. Nucl. Med. 13, 453 (1972).
  14. T. M. Anderson, R. A. Mintzer, P. B. Hoffer, L. B. Lusted, V. C. Smith, J. Pokorny, “Nuclear image transmission by Picturephone: evaluation by ROC curve method,” Invest. Radiol. 8, 244–250 (1973). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. C. E. Metz, “Basic principles of ROC analysis,” Sem. Nucl. Med. 8, 283–298 (1978). [CrossRef]
  16. D. A. Turner, “An intuitive approach to receiver operating characteristic curve analysis,” J. Nucl. Med. 19, 213–220 (1978). [PubMed]
  17. J. A. Swets, “ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging techniques,” Invest. Radiol. 14, 109–121 (1979). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. J. A. Swets, R. M. Pickett, Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems (Academic, New York, 1982).
  19. W. P. Tanner, T. G. Birdsall, “Definitions of d′ and η as psychophysical measures,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 30, 922–928 (1958). [CrossRef]
  20. D. D. Dorfman, E. Alf, “Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection theory and determination of confidence intervals-rating method data,” J. Math. Psych. 6, 487–496 (1969). [CrossRef]
  21. J. A. Hanley, B. J. McNeil, “The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve,” Radiology 143, 29–36 (1982). [PubMed]
  22. C. E. Cook, M. Bernfeld, Radar Signals: An Introduction to Theory and Applications (Academic, New York, 1967).
  23. A. E. Burgess, R. J. Jennings, R. F. Wagner, “Statistical efficiency: a measure of human visual signal-detection performance,” J. Appl. Photo. Eng. 8, 76–78 (1982).
  24. H. B. Barlow, “The efficiency of detecting changes in density in random dot patterns,” Vision Res. 18, 637–650 (1978). [CrossRef]
  25. A. E. Burgess, R. F. Wagner, R. J. Jennings, H. B. Barlow, “Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination,” Science 214, 93–94 (1981). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. R. F. Wagner, D. G. Brown, “More unified analysis of medical imaging system SNR characteristics,” Proc. Soc. Photo-Opt. Instrum. Eng. 454, 2–8 (1984).
  27. Although the efficiency value for n= 4 seems high in comparison with the other three efficiency values, this number is not significantly different from the others. This is simply due to the fact that this ηnpwis the ratio of two very small numbers, the first and third elements of the column for n= 4. We should expect a large error in this value from Fig. 14.

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.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited