Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Med Phys. 2008 Apr;35(4):1358-64.

A comparative contrast-detail study of five medical displays.

Author information

1
Duke Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA. samei@duke.edu

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the contrast-detail performance of five different commercial liquid crystal displays (LCDs) to other LCD and cathode-ray tube (CRT) displays for medical applications. A contrast-detail phantom, supplemented with 5 in. of acrylic, was imaged on a commercial digital radiographic system using techniques comparable to chest radiography. The phantom design enabled observer evaluation by a four-alternative forced choice paradigm. The acquired images were independently scored by five observers on five medical display devices: a 5 megapixel monochrome LCD, a 3 megapixel monochrome LCD, a 9 megapixel color LCD, a 5 megapixel monochrome CRT, and a mammographic-grade monochrome CRT. The data were analyzed using the method suggested by the manufacturer based on a nearest neighbor correction technique. They were further analyzed using a logistic regression response model with a natural threshold using an overall chi-square test for display type followed by pairwise comparisons for individual display performance. The differences between the display devices were small. The standard analysis of the results based on the manufacturer-recommended method did not yield any statistically discernible trend among displays. The logistic regression analysis, however, indicated that the 5 megapixel monochrome LCD was statistically significantly (p <0.0001) superior to the others, followed by the 3 megapixel monochrome LCD (p<0.0001). The three other displays exhibited lower but generally similar performance characteristics. The findings suggest that 5 and 3 megapixel monochrome LCDs provide comparable but subtly superior contrast detectability than other tested displays, with the former performing slightly better in the detection of subtle and fine details.

PMID:
18491530
DOI:
10.1118/1.2868780
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Support Center