Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Differential Use of Image Enhancement Techniques by Experienced and Inexperienced Observers

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) systems are currently being used to acquire mammograms in digital format, but digital displays are less than ideal compared to traditional film-screen display. Certain physical properties of softcopy displays [e.g., modulation transfer function (MTF)] are less than optimal compared to film. We developed methods to compensate for some of these softcopy display deficiencies, based on careful physical characterization of the displays and image-processing software. A series of 100 FFDM and 60 digitized images was shown to six observers—half experienced (mammographers) and half inexperienced (radiology residents). The observers had to decide if a mass or microcalcification cluster was present and classify it as benign or malignant. A window could be activated that brought the image detail within the window to full resolution and corrected for the nonisotropic MTF of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) display. Experienced readers had better diagnostic performance and took less time to view the images. Experienced readers used window/level more than inexperienced readers, but inexperienced readers used magnification and the MTF compensation tool more often. Use of the magnification and the MTF tool increased reader decision confidence. Experienced and inexperienced readers use image-processing tools differently, with certain tools increasing reader confidence. Understanding how observers use image-processing tools may help in the development of better and more automated user interfaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1
Fig 2
Fig 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. U Fischer F Baum S Obenauer et al. (2002) ArticleTitleComparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography Eur Radiol 12 2679–2683 Occurrence Handle12386757

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. S Obenauer KP Hermann K Marten et al. (2003) ArticleTitleSoft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography J Digit Imaging 16 341–344 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s10278-003-1661-z Occurrence Handle14749966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. E Cole ED Pisano M Brown et al. (2004) ArticleTitleDiagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population Acad Radiol 11 879–886 Occurrence Handle10.1016/j.acra.2004.04.003 Occurrence Handle15288038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. ED Pisano EB Cole EO Kistner et al. (2002) ArticleTitleInterpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display Radiol 223 483–488

    Google Scholar 

  5. EA Krupinski J Johnson H Roehrig J Nafziger J Fan J Lubin (2004) ArticleTitleUse of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images J Digit Imaging 17 258–263 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s10278-004-1016-4 Occurrence Handle15692869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. A Badano MJ Flynn S Martin J Kanicki (2003) ArticleTitleAngular dependence of the luminance and contrast in medical monochrome liquid crystal displays Med Phys 30 2602–2613 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.1606449 Occurrence Handle14596296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. HL Kundel SP Weinstein EF Conant LC Toto CF Nodine (1999) ArticleTitleA perceptually tempered display for digital mammograms Radiographics 19 1313–1318 Occurrence Handle10489182

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. ED Pisano EB Cole BM Hemminger MJ Yaffe SR Aylward et al. (2000) ArticleTitleImage processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay Radiographics 20 1479–1491 Occurrence Handle10992035

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. BM Hemminger S Zong KE Muller CS Coffey et al. (2001) ArticleTitleImproving the detection of simulated masses in mammograms through two different image-processing techniques Acad Radiol 8 845–855 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80762-6 Occurrence Handle11724039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. AP Stefanoyiannis L Costaridou S Skiadopoulos G Panayiotakis (2003) ArticleTitleA digital equalization technique improving visualization of dense mammary gland and breast periphery in mammography Eur J Radiol 45 139–149 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0720-048X(02)00057-8 Occurrence Handle12536094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. EB Cole ED Pisano EO Kistner KE Muller ME Brown ME Feig et al. (2003) ArticleTitleDiagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type Radiol. 216 153–160

    Google Scholar 

  12. M Kallergi JJ Heine CG Berman MR Hersh AP Romilly AP Clark (2004) ArticleTitleImproved interpretation of digitized mammography with wavelet processing: a localization response operating characteristic study Am J Roentgenol 182 697–703

    Google Scholar 

  13. FL Nunes H Schiabel RH Benatti (2002) ArticleTitleContrast enhancement in dense breast images using the modulation transfer function Med Phys 29 2925–2936 Occurrence Handle10.1118/1.1521119 Occurrence Handle12512729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. EA Krupinski J Johnson H Roehrig M Engstrom et al. (2003) ArticleTitleUsing a human visual system model to optimize soft-copy mammography display: influence of MTF compensation Acad Radiol 10 1030–1035 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S1076-6332(03)00293-9 Occurrence Handle13678092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. GG Reiker H Blume RM Slone PM Woodward et al. (1997) ArticleTitleFilmless digital chest radiography within the radiology department Proc SPIE Med Imag 3035 355–368 Occurrence Handlefull_text||10.1117/12.274591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. H Roehrig (2000) The monochrome cathode ray tube display and its performance Y Kim SC Horii (Eds) Handbook of Medical Imaging Volume 3. Display and PACS SPIE Press Bellingham, WA 155–220

    Google Scholar 

  17. H Blume P Steven A Ho F Stevens A Abileah S Robinson et al. (2003) ArticleTitleCharacterization of liquid-crystal displays for medical images—part 2 Proc SPIE Med Imag 5029 449–473 Occurrence Handlefull_text||10.1117/12.479774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. DD Dorfman KS Berbaum CE Metz (1992) ArticleTitleReceiver operating characteristic analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method Invest Radiol 27 723–731 Occurrence Handle1399456

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. EA Krupinski (1996) ArticleTitleVisual scanning patterns of radiologists searching mammograms Acad Radiol 3 137–144 Occurrence Handle8796654

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. CF Nodine C Mello-Thoms HL Kundel SP Weinstein (2002) ArticleTitleTime course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation Am J Roentgenol 179 917–923

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by grants from the NIH numbers 5R01 CA 079930-03 and 5R01 CA 085626-03.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Arizona, 1609 N. Warren Bldg 211 Rm 112, Tucson, AZ, 85724, USA

    Elizabeth A. Krupinski Ph.D., Hans Roehrig Ph.D., William Dallas Ph.D. & Jiahua Fan M.S.

Authors
  1. Elizabeth A. Krupinski Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans Roehrig Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William Dallas Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiahua Fan M.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Krupinski Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krupinski, E.A., Roehrig, H., Dallas, W. et al. Differential Use of Image Enhancement Techniques by Experienced and Inexperienced Observers. J Digit Imaging 18, 311–315 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-005-7666-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-005-7666-z

Key Words

Search

Navigation