Generalizing the Evaluation of Medical Image Processing Tools by Use of Gabor Patterns

Summary

Objective: Tools for medical image processing are usually evaluated by observers with radiological experience and with complex tasks. For easing evaluation of filtering and enhancement tools, the observer’s task can be generalized.

Methods: By describing aspects of the MCS method (Mammographic Contrast Sensitivity) we illustrate issues of selecting a metric for assessing visual performance, the observer’s task and the image material to be used, aiming at a generalization of the design of studies for the evaluation of medical image processing tools. Concerning the metric, we distinguish acuity from contrast sensitivity. With respect to the observer’s task, we distinguish tasks of discrimination from those at a higher level of recognition. Finally, we show the advantage of using medical images for evaluating image processing tools by comparing the results for measurements on homogeneous background and mammographic images.

Results: The perceptual level of the observer’s task and the complexity of the used image material influences the outcome of observer studies, particularly also from crowding effects. The design of a study should minimize the impact of the observer’s experience on the outcome. This can be achieved by using non-anatomical, standardized perceptual targets like Gabor patterns, used in the context of medical images.

Conclusions: Understanding the concepts of perception helps designing observer studies that are as complex as required, but at the same time as simple and general as possible. Performing an observer study may be simplified by a study design which does not require radiological experience of the observers, if the study aims at the evaluation of tools that shall support basic perception tasks, such as e.g. contrast enhancement.

Keywords

Perception - mammography - research design

• References

• 1 Manning DJ, Gale A, Krupinski EA. Perception research in medical imaging. Br J Radiol 2005; 78: 683-685.
• 2 Krupinski EA. The future of image perception in radiology: Synergy between humans and computers. Acad Radiol 2003; 10: 1-3.
• 3 Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF. Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys 2001; 28 (Suppl. 04) 419-437.
• 4 Awai K, Murao K, Ozawa A, Komi M, Hayakawa H, Hori S. et al. Pulmonary nodules at chest CT: effect of computer-aided diagnosis on radiologists’ detection performance. Radiology 2004; 230: 347-352.
• 5 Zimmerman JB, Pizer SM, Staab EV, Perry JR, McCartney W, Brenton BC. An evaluation of the effectiveness of adaptive histogram equalization for contrast enhancement. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1988; 7 (Suppl. 04) 304-312.
• 6 Graf B, Simon U, Eickmeyer F, Fiedler V. IK versus 2K monitor: a clinical alternative free-response Receiver operating characteristic study of observer performance using pulmonary nodules. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1067-1074.
• 7 Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999; 28 (Suppl. 04) 203-207.
• 8 Burgess AE, Jacobson FL, Judy PF. Detection of lesions in mammographic structure. Proceedings of SPIE 1999; 3663: 304-315.
• 9 Apelt D, Peitgen HO. Contrast sensitivity in mammographic softcopy reading – determination with psychophysical procedures. Digital Mammography, 9th International Workshop, IWDM 2008 Tucson, AZ, USA: Springer; LNCS 5116 756-763.
• 10 Apelt D, Strasburger H, Rascher-Friesenhausen R, Klein J, Preim B, Peitgen HO. Contrast sensitivity in mammographic softcopy reading. Proceedings of SPIE 2009; 726318.1–726318.11.
• 11 Apelt D, Rascher-Friesenhausen R, Klein J, Strasburger H, Preim B, Peitgen HO. Impact of luminance distribution in the visual field on foveal contrast sensitivity in the context of mammo-graphic softcopy reading. Proceedings of SPIE. 2009; 72630B.1–72630B.9.
• 12 Treutwein B. Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Minireview. Vision Res 1995; 35: 2503-2522.
• 13 Mello-Thoms C. Perception of breast cancer: eye-position analysis of mammogram interpretation. Acad Radiol 2003; 10: 4-12.
• 14 Mello-Thoms C, Chapman B. A preliminary report on the role of spatial frequency analysis in the perception of breast cancers missed at mammography screening. Acad Radiol. 2004; 11: 894-908.
• 15 Campbell FW, Robson JG. Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. J Physiol 1968; 197: 551-566.
• 16 Simpson WA, McFadden SM. Spatial frequency channels derived from individual differences. Vision Res 2005; 45: 2723-2727.
• 17 Zetzsche C, Barth E. Fundamental limits of linear filters in the visual processing of two-dimensional signals. Vision Res 1990; 30: 1111-1117.
• 18 Barth E, Zetzsche C, Rentschler I. Intrinsic two-dimensional features as textons. J Opt Soc Am A 1998; 15: 1723-1732.
• 19 Strasburger H, Rentschler I. Contrast-dependent dissociation of visual recognition and detection fields. Eur J Neurosci 1996; 8: 1787-1791.
• 20 Strasburger H. Indirect vision [Indirektes Sehen]. (in German). Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2003
• 21 Levi DM. Crowding – an essential bottleneck for object recognition: a mini-review. Vision Res 2008; 48 (Suppl. 05) 635-654.
• 22 Strasburger H, Harvey Jr LO, Rentschler I. Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and excentric view. Percept Psychophys 1991; 49: 495-508.
• 23 Strasburger H. Unfocussed spatial attention underlies the crowding effect in indirect form vision. J Vis 2005; 5 (11) 1024-1037.
• 24 Samei E, Flynn MJ, Peterson E, Eyler WR. Subtle lung nodules. Influence of local anatomic variations on detection. Radiology 2003; 228: 76-84.
• 25 Krupinski EA. The importance of perception research in medical imaging. Radiat Med 2000; 18 (Suppl. 06) 329-334.