&lt;title&gt;System to maintain perceptually linear networked display devices&lt;/title&gt;

Reimann, David A.; Flynn, Michael J.; Ciarelli, James J.

doi:10.1117/12.207626

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3] According to the American Association of Physicists in Medicine ͑AAPM͒ professional guidelines, 4 the performance assessment of electronic display devices falls within the professional responsibilities of medical physicists. While many prior publications have addressed some aspect of medical display performance, [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] prior evaluation and standardization efforts have fallen short of providing an unified approach for testing the performance of display devices such that the tests would take into consideration all the important aspects of display performance, be specific to medical displays, and be relatively easy to implement in a clinical setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: Executive summary of AAPM TG18 report

Badano²,

et al. 2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital imaging provides an effective means to electronically acquire, archive, distribute, and view medical images. Medical imaging display stations are an integral part of these operations. Therefore, it is vitally important to assure that electronic display devices do not compromise image quality and ultimately patient care. The AAPM Task Group 18 (TG18) recently published guidelines and acceptance criteria for acceptance testing and quality control of medical display devices. This paper is an executive summary of the TG18 report. TG18 guidelines include visual, quantitative, and advanced testing methodologies for primary and secondary class display devices. The characteristics, tested in conjunction with specially designed test patterns (i.e., TG18 patterns), include reflection, geometric distortion, luminance, the spatial and angular dependencies of luminance, resolution, noise, glare, chromaticity, and display artifacts. Geometric distortions are evaluated by linear measurements of the TG18-QC test pattern, which should render distortion coefficients less than 2%/5% for primary/secondary displays, respectively. Reflection measurements include specular and diffuse reflection coefficients from which the maximum allowable ambient lighting is determined such that contrast degradation due to display reflection remains below a 20% limit and the level of ambient luminance (Lamb) does not unduly compromise luminance ratio (LR) and contrast at low luminance levels. Luminance evaluation relies on visual assessment of low contrast features in the TG18-CT and TG18-MP test patterns, or quantitative measurements at 18 distinct luminance levels of the TG18-LN test patterns. The major acceptable criteria for primary/ secondary displays are maximum luminance of greater than 170/100 cd/m2, LR of greater than 250/100, and contrast conformance to that of the grayscale standard display function (GSDF) of better than 10%/20%, respectively. The angular response is tested to ascertain the viewing cone within which contrast conformance to the GSDF is better than 30%/60% and LR is greater than 175/70 for primary/secondary displays, or alternatively, within which the on-axis contrast thresholds of the TG18-CT test pattern remain discernible. The evaluation of luminance spatial uniformity at two distinct luminance levels across the display faceplate using TG18-UNL test patterns should yield nonuniformity coefficients smaller than 30%. The resolution evaluation includes the visual scoring of the CX test target in the TG18-QC or TG18-CX test patterns, which should yield scores greater than 4/6 for primary/secondary displays. Noise evaluation includes visual evaluation of the contrast threshold in the TG18-AFC test pattern, which should yield a minimum of 3/2 targets visible for primary/secondary displays. The guidelines also include methodologies for more quantitative resolution and noise measurements based on MTF and NPS analyses. The display glare test, based on the visibility of the low-contrast targets of the TG18-GV test pattern or...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: Executive summary of AAPM TG18 report

Badano²,

et al. 2005

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the initial work was aimed at understanding the manner in which image values were to be converted to luminance outputs on the screen in order to obtain equal perceptual response for equal changes in image values. 2 These efforts resulted in a number of display presentation grayscale functions 3 that are based on psychophysical models of observer performance. In addition, many investigators have studied the spatial resolution properties of display systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise in flat‐panel displays with subpixel structure

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subpixel structures found in medical monochrome active-matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCDs) affect noise estimates measured with conventional methods. In this work, we discuss methods that identify sources of noise and permit the comparison of luminance noise estimates across technologies independent of pixel design and device technology. We used a three-million pixel AMLCD with a pixel structure consisting of three color stripes, each in a two-domain, in-plane switching mode. Images of uniform fields displayed on the AMLCD were acquired using a low-noise, high-resolution CCD camera. The camera noise and flat-field response were characterized using a uniform light source constructed for this purpose. We show results in terms of spatial luminance noise and noise power spectrum for high-resolution images and for the same images processed with a pixel-aligned aperture. We find that the pixel-aligned aperture eliminates almost all the noise found in the high-resolution images, suggesting that most of the luminance noise in AMLCDs comes from the subpixel structure and less-than-100% aperture ratio, rather than from interpixel variations.

show abstract

“…Prior literature mostly has focused on design aspects or on the fundamental physics of the display technology , Senol 1995, Kelley 1995. A number of investigations have begun to address the quality control aspects of electronic displays (Roehrig 1990, Gray 1992, Nawfel 1992, Reimann 1995, Eckert 1995, Kato 1995, and the DICOM Grayscale Standard Display Function working group has recently provided recommendations for the grayscale of soft-copy displays (DICOM 1998). However, the assessments of many of the critical medical display characteristics are not standardized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<title>Objective performance evaluation of medical image displays: a preliminary report of the AAPM TG18</title>

Samei

2001

Flat Panel Display Technology and Display Metrology II

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances in electronic imaging have led to an increased utilization of soft-copy displays for presentation and diagnostic interpretation of medical images in clinical settings. Because of the fundamental importance of display quality in the overall effectiveness of diagnostic imaging, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) has recently formed a Task Group (TG1 8) to address the acceptance testing and quality control of medical electronic display devices. The purpose of the Task Group is to provide standard guidelines for performing display evaluations by practicing medical physicists, engineers, and display investigators, to assure adequate display performance for clinical tasks, and to facilitate inter-and intra-institutional comparisons. The scope of the effort is limited to display devices for monochrome radiological images. The performance characteristics considered include luminance response, luminance uniformity, resolution, noise, veiling glare, ambient light response, color uniformity, geometrical distortions, and display artifacts. For each of the characteristics, three levels of evaluation are considered: visual, quantitative, and advanced. Based on the current standard of practice, suggestions are made for the acceptable ranges of display performance with limited impact on diagnostic efficacy. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief outline and summary of the TG18 report.

show abstract

<title>System to maintain perceptually linear networked display devices</title>

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: Executive summary of AAPM TG18 report

Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: Executive summary of AAPM TG18 report

Noise in flat‐panel displays with subpixel structure

<title>Objective performance evaluation of medical image displays: a preliminary report of the AAPM TG18</title>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About