Perceived fidelity of compressed and reconstructed radiological images: a preliminary exploration of compression, luminance, and viewing distance

Contrast sensitivity of digital imaging display systems: contrast threshold dependency on object type and implications for monitor quality assurance and quality control in PACS

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 18 has published standards and quality control (QC) guidelines to ensure consistency and optimal quality for digital image display systems (DIDSs). In many of these recommended QC tests, static test patterns that contain low-contrast objects are often used to assess and validate the quality of a DIDS. These low-contrast objects often have the shape of circular disks or squares with sharp edges, neither of which resemble most of the diagnostic findings in medical images. On the other hand, circular objects with fuzzy boundaries bear a closer resemblance to lung nodules in chest radiography and masses in mammography; thus, they may be more clinically relevant in assessing display system quality. In this article human observers' contrast sensitivities of circular objects with sharp edges and those with fuzzy ones were investigated. The contrast thresholds of human viewers using a consumer-grade color LCD monitor and a medical-grade monochrome LCD monitor were measured for objects of various sizes displayed against uniform backgrounds with various luminance levels. Contrast-detail curves for circular objects with sharp edges and those with fuzzy boundaries were measured and compared. It was found that contrast thresholds for objects with fuzzy boundaries were higher (i.e., the objects were more difficult to detect) than those with sharp edges. Objects with fuzzy boundaries were potentially more sensitive in distinguishing quality differences among image display devices and thus may be a better QC measurement in detecting subtle deterioration in image display devices.

JPEG 2000 Compression of Abdominal CT: Difference in Tolerance Between Thin- and Thick-Section Images

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to compare the tolerance of Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) 2000 compression between thin- and thick-section abdominal CT images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred 0.67-mm-thick and corresponding 5-mm-thick images were compressed to four different levels: reversible and irreversible 6:1, 10:1, and 15:1. Five radiologists determined if the compressed images were distinguishable from the originals. The percentage of distinguishable pairs and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) were compared between the thin and thick sections. The visually lossless threshold was estimated by comparing the percentages of the distinguishable pairs between each irreversible compression and the reversible compression. Paired Student's t tests and exact tests for paired proportions were used.

RESULTS

Thin sections had smaller PSNRs at each compression level (p < 0.001). According to the pooled responses, the percentages of distinguishable pairs for the thin and thick sections, respectively, were 0% (0/100) and 0% at reversible compression, 27% and 0% at 6:1 (p < 0.001), 100% and 80% at 10:1 (p < 0.001), and 100% and 100% at 15:1. Artifacts increased significantly (p < 0.001) at 6:1 or more for the thin sections and at 10:1 and 15:1 for the thick sections, indicating that the visually lossless thresholds were below 6:1 and between 6:1 and 10:1, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Thin-section abdominal CT images are less tolerant of compression, and a lower compression level should be used for the visually lossless threshold.

Irreversible JPEG 2000 compression of abdominal CT for primary interpretation: assessment of visually lossless threshold

To estimate the visually lossless threshold for Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) 2000 compression of contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT) images, 100 images were compressed to four different levels: a reversible (as negative control) and irreversible 5:1, 10:1, and 15:1. By alternately displaying the original and the compressed image on the same monitor, six radiologists independently determined if the compressed image was distinguishable from the original image. For each reader, we compared the proportion of the compressed images being rated distinguishable from the original images between the reversible compression and each of the three irreversible compressions using the exact test for paired proportions. For each reader, the proportion was not significantly different between the reversible (0-1%, 0/100 to 1/100) and irreversible 5:1 compression (0-3%). However, the proportion significantly increased with the irreversible 10:1 (95-99%) and 15:1 compressions (100%) versus reversible compression in all readers (P < 0.001); 100 and 95% of the 5:1 compressed images were rated indistinguishable from the original images by at least five of the six readers and all readers, respectively. Irreversibly 5:1 compressed abdominal CT images are visually lossless and, therefore, potentially acceptable for primary interpretation.

Irreversible JPEG compression of digital chest radiographs for primary interpretation: assessment of visually lossless threshold

PURPOSE

To determine if digital chest images could be compressed in a primary interpretation context without perceived loss of fidelity (below the visually lossless threshold) at transilluminated film or cathode ray tube (CRT) display.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred forty-four posteroanterior radiographs were obtained with a digital chest radiography system. At both film and CRT display, an identified original image was presented side by side with a replicate, which was either an unaltered image or an image that had been Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) compressed to 10:1, 20:1, or 50:1 and reconstructed. Each of the 10 readers indicated whether the replicate was "indistinguishable from the original" or "degraded" at clinical reading distance and at close inspection. The readers' ability to detect compressed images was examined for patterns; 95% CIs were used for statistical testing.

RESULTS

With transilluminated film at clinical reading distance, readers were as likely to rate originals (48 [20%] of 240 readings) as degraded as they were to rate 20:1 replicates (106 [22%] of 480 readings) as degraded, but they frequently identified 50:1 replicates (283 [59%] of 480 readings) as degraded. At close inspection, 20:1 replicates (163 [34%] of 480 readings) were often identified as degraded, but 10:1 replicates (19 [8%] of 240 readings) were not identified as degraded more often than originals (17 [7%] of 240 readings). With CRT display, the results were nearly identical.

CONCLUSION

At reading distance for primary interpretation, full-size digital chest radiographs that have been JPEG compressed to 10:1 or 20:1 and reconstructed are visually lossless at film or CRT display. Images compressed to 10:1 remain visually lossless at close inspection.

Proposal of a quality-index or metric for soft copy display systems: contrast sensitivity study

In addition to the inherent qualities of a digital image, the qualities of the monitor and graphics control card as well as the viewing conditions will affect the perceived quality of an image that is displayed on a soft copy display (SD) system. With the implementation of picture archiving and communication systems (PACS), many diagnoses are being made based on images displayed on SD devices, and consequently SD quality may affect the accuracy of diagnosis. Unlike the traditional film-on-lightbox display, optimal SD system parameters are not well defined, and many issues remain unsettled. In this article, the human observer performance, as measured by contrast sensitivity, for several SD devices including an active matrix liquid crystal flat panel monitor is reported. Contrast sensitivities were measured with various display system configurations. Experimental results showed that contrast sensitivity depends on many factors such as the type of monitor, the monitor brightness, and the gamma settings of the graphics card in a complex manner. However, there is a clear correlation between the measured contrast thresholds and the gradient of the display device's luminance response curve. Based on this correlation, it is proposed to use the gradient of luminance response curve as a quality-index or metric for SD devices.

Assessment of visually lossless irreversible image compression: comparison of three methods by using an image-comparison workstation

PURPOSE

To determine the degree of irreversible image compression detectable in conservative viewing conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An image-comparison workstation, which alternately displayed two registered and magnified versions of an image, was used to study observer detection of image degradation introduced by irreversible compression. Five observers evaluated 20 16-bit posteroanterior digital chest radiographs compressed with Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) or wavelet-based trellis-coded quantization (WTCQ) algorithms at compression ratios of 8:1-128:1 and x2 magnification by using (a) traditional two-alternative forced choice; (b) original-revealed two-alternative forced choice, in which the noncompressed image is identified to the observer; and (c) a resolution-metric method of matching test images to degraded reference images.

RESULTS

The visually lossless threshold was between 8:1 and 16:1 for four observers. JPEG compression resulted in performance as good as that with WTCQ compression at these ratios. The original-revealed forced-choice method was faster and as sensitive as the two-alternative forced-choice method. The resolution-metric results were robust and provided information on performance above visually lossless levels.

CONCLUSION

The image-comparison workstation is a versatile tool for comparative assessment of image quality. At x2 magnification, images compressed with either JPEG or WTCQ algorithms were indistinguishable from unaltered original images for most observers at compression ratios between 8:1 and 16:1, indicating that 10:1 compression is acceptable for primary image interpretation.

Effects of luminance and resolution on observer performance with chest radiographs

PURPOSE

To examine the combined effects of image resolution and display luminance on observer performance for detection of abnormalities depicted on posteroanterior chest radiographs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 529 radiographs were displayed on a specially constructed view box at three luminance levels (770, 260, and 85 cd/m(2)) and three resolutions (100-microm, 200-microm, and 400-microm pixels). Each image was reviewed nine times by six radiologists who participated in this study. The abnormalities included nodule, pneumothorax, interstitial disease, alveolar infiltrates, and rib fracture. Negative (normal) radiographs were also included.

RESULTS

Receiver operating characteristic curves indicated that the effect of image luminance was greater than that of resolution. The detection of pneumothorax, interstitial disease, and rib fracture showed statistically significant differences (P <. 05) due to luminance. The detection of pneumothorax was the only abnormality with a statistically significant difference due to resolution. There was no evidence that luminance was related to image resolution for any of the abnormalities.

CONCLUSION

At a resolution of 400-microm pixels or higher across the field of view and a luminance of 260 cd/m(2) or more, primary diagnosis with posteroanterior chest radiographs is not likely to be affected by the quality of display.

Diagnostic accuracy of film-based, TIFF, and wavelet compressed digital temporomandibular joint images

The purpose of this research was to determine if digitization and the application of various compression routines to digital images of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) radiographs would diminish observer accuracy in the detection of specific osseous characteristics associated with TMJ degenerative joint disease (DJD). Nine observers viewed 6 cropped hard-copy radiographic films each of 34 TMJs (17 radiographic series). Regions of interest measuring 2 in x 2 in were digitized using an 8-bit scanner with transparency adapter at 300 dpi. The images were placed into a montage of 6 images and stored as tagged image file format (TIFF), compressed at 4 levels (25:1, 50:1, 75:1, and 100:1) using a wavelet algorithm, and displayed to the observers on a computer monitor. Their observations regarding condylar faceting, sclerosis, osteophyte formation, erosion, and abnormal shape were analyzed using ROC. Kappa values were determined for relative condylar size and condylar position within the glenoid fossa. Indices were compared using ANOVA at a significance level of P < .05. Although significant and substantial observer variability was demonstrated, there were no statistically significant differences between image modalities, except for condylar position, in which TIFF and wavelet (at all compression ratios) performed better than the original image. For faceting, wavelet 100:1 performed better than radiographic film images. Little actual image file reduction was achieved at compression ratios above 25:1.

Seamless multiresolution display of portable wavelet-compressed images

Image storage, display, and distribution have been difficult problems in radiology for many years. As improvements in technology have changed the nature of the storage and display media, demand for image portability, faster image acquisition, and flexible image distribution is driving the development of responsive systems. Technology, such as the wavelet-based multiresolution seamless image database (MrSID) portable image format (PIF), is enabling image management solutions that address the shifting "point-of-care." The MrSID PIF employs seamless, multiresolution technology, which allows the viewer to determine the size of the image to be viewed, as well as the position of the viewing area within the image dataset. In addition the MrSID PIF allows control of the compression ratio of decompressed images. This capability offers the advantage of very rapid image recall from storage devices and portability for rapid transmission and distribution using the internet or wide-area networks. For example, in teleradiology, the radiologist or other physician desiring to view images at a remote location has full flexibility in being able to choose a quick display of an overview image, a complete display of a full diagnostic quality image, or both without compromising communication bandwidth. The MrSID algorithm will satisfy Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) 2000 standards, thereby being compatible with future versions of the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) standard for image data compression.