Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 27, Issue 2 , Pages 109-116 , April 2011

A comparative contrast perception phantom image of brain CT study between high-grade and low-grade liquid crystal displays (LCDs) in electronic medical charts

  • Kumiko Yoshimura

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiological Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, 1-20 Daiko-Minami 1-chome, Higashi-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 461-8673, Japan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +81 52 719 1524; fax: +81 52 719 1506.
    • ,
  • Kazuhiro Shimamoto

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiological Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, 1-20 Daiko-Minami 1-chome, Higashi-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 461-8673, Japan
    • ,
  • Mitsuru Ikeda

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiological Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, 1-20 Daiko-Minami 1-chome, Higashi-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 461-8673, Japan
    • ,
  • Katsuhiro Ichikawa

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Science, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-0942, Japan
    • ,
  • Shinji Naganawa

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya University, 65 Tsurumai, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 466-8550, Japan

Received 20 November 2009 ,Revised 20 April 2010 ,Accepted 2 June 2010.

References 

  1. Kamitani T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Sakai S, et al. Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(5):1365–1371
  2. Usami H, Ikeda M, Ishigaki T, Fukushima H, Shimamoto K. The influence of liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors on observer performance for the detection of nodular lesions on chest radiographs. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(3):726–732
  3. Kawasumi Y, Yamada T, Ota H, Tsuboi M, Takase K, Sato A, et al. High-resolution monochrome liquid crystal display versus efficient household colour liquid crystal display: comparison of their diagnostic performance with unenhanced CT images in focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(10):2148–2154
  4. Pärtan G, Mayrhofer R, Urban M, Wassipaul M, Pichler L, Hruby W. Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray-tube monitors in brain computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(10):2397–2401
  5. Graf B, Simon U, Eickmeyer F, Fiedler V. 1K versus 2K monitor: a clinical alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic study of observer performance using pulmonary nodules. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(4):1067–1074
  6. National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc . Digital imaging and communications in medicine (DICOM), Part 3.14, grayscale standard display function. Technical report ACR/NEMA; 1998;
  7. Medical Physics Publishing. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems. American Association of Physicists in Medicine, AAPM Task Group 18, AAPM On-Line Report No. 03, Madison, WI; 2005.
  8. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, Compton K, Cornelius C, Corrigan K, et al. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys. 2005;32:1205–1225
  9. Rosset A, Spadola L, Ratib O. OsiriX: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional DICOM images. J Digit Imaging. 2004;17(3):205–216
  10. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol. 1992;27:723–731
  11. Yamaguchi M, Fujita H, Asai Y, Uemura M, Ookura Y, Matsumoto M, et al. Psychophysical analysis of monitor display functions affecting observer diagnostic performance of CT image on liquid crystal display monitors. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(12):2487–2496
  12. Samei E, Ranger NT, Delong DM. A comparative contrast-detail study of five medical displays. Med Phys. 2008;35(4):1358–1364
  13. Chotas Harrell G, Ravin Carl E. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy. Radiology. 2001;218(3):679–682
  14. Hidano S, Ikeda M, Ishigaki T, Usami H, Shimamoto K, Kato K. Effects of monitor luminance change on observer detection performance. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2005;29(1):35–41
  15. Goo JM, Choi JY, Im JG, Lee HJ, Chung MJ, Han D, et al. Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Radiology. 2004;32(3):762–766
  16. Polland BJ, Chawls AS, Delong DM, Hashimoto N, Samei E. Object detectability at increased ambient lighting conditions. Med Phys. 2008;35:2204–2213
  17. O’Connell NM, Toomey RJ, McEntee M, Ryan J, Stowe J, Adams A, et al. Optimization of region of interest luminances may enhance radiologist’s light adaptation. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:488–493
  18. Ishihara S, Shimamoto K, Ikeda M, Kato K, Mori Y, Ishiguchi T, et al. CRT diagnosis of pulmonary disease: influence of monitor brightness and room illuminance on observer performance. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2003;26:181–185
  19. Krupinski EA. Medical grade vs off-the-shelf color displays: influence on observer performance and visual search. J Digit Imaging. 2008;22(4):363–368
  20. Husain AM, Hayes S, Young M, Shah D. Visual evoked potentials with CRT and LCD monitors: when newer is not better. Neurology. 2009;72(2):162–164

PII: S1120-1797(10)00038-4

doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2010.06.001

Physica Medica: European Journal of Medical Physics
Volume 27, Issue 2 , Pages 109-116 , April 2011

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution