Book contents
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques, Second Edition
- Reviews
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Medical Image Perception
- Part I Historical Reflections and Theoretical Foundations
- Part II Science of Image Perception
- Part III Perception Metrology
- 14 Designing Perception Experiments
- 15 Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis: Basic Concepts and Practical Applications
- 16 Multireader ROC Analysis
- 17 Memory Effects and Experimental Design
- 18 Observer Models as a Surrogate to Perception Experiments
- 19 Implementation of Observer Models
- 20 Value and Limitations of Observer Models
- Part IV Clinical Performance Assessment
- Part V Computational Perception
- Part VI Applied Perception
- Index
- References
18 - Observer Models as a Surrogate to Perception Experiments
from Part III - Perception Metrology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2018
Book contents
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques, Second Edition
- Reviews
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Medical Image Perception
- Part I Historical Reflections and Theoretical Foundations
- Part II Science of Image Perception
- Part III Perception Metrology
- 14 Designing Perception Experiments
- 15 Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis: Basic Concepts and Practical Applications
- 16 Multireader ROC Analysis
- 17 Memory Effects and Experimental Design
- 18 Observer Models as a Surrogate to Perception Experiments
- 19 Implementation of Observer Models
- 20 Value and Limitations of Observer Models
- Part IV Clinical Performance Assessment
- Part V Computational Perception
- Part VI Applied Perception
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques , pp. 276 - 288Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Abbey, C.K., Barrett, H.H. (2001). Human and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. J Opt Soc Am A, 18, 473–488.Google Scholar
Abbey, C.K., Bochud, F.O. (2000). Modeling visual detection tasks in correlated image noise with linear model observers. In: Beutel, J., Kundel, H.L., Van Metter, R.L. (eds.). The Handbook of Medical Imaging: Volume 1, Progress in Medical Physics and Psychophysics, Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press, pp. 629–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbey, C.K., Eckstein, M.P. (2007). Classification images for simple detection and discrimination tasks in correlated noise. J Opt Soc Am A, 24, B110–B124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahumada, A.J., Jr. (1987). Putting the visual system noise back in the picture. J Opt Soc Am A, 4, 2372–2378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aufrichtig, R., Xue, P. (2000). Dose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon X-ray detector for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol, 45, 2653–2669.Google Scholar
Barrett, H.H., Yao, J., Rolland, J.P., Myers, K.J. (1993). Observer models for assessment of image quality. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 90, 9758–9765.Google Scholar
Barrett, H.H., Denny, J.L., Wagner, R.F., Myers, K.J. (1995). Objective assessment of image quality. II. Fisher information, Fourier crosstalk, and figures of merit for task performance. J Opt Soc Am A, 12, 834–852.Google Scholar
Barten, P.G.J. (1987). The SQRI method: a new method for the evaluation of visible resolution on a display. Proc Soc Inf Disp, 28: 253–262.Google Scholar
Barten, P.G.J. (1999). Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and its Effect on Image Quality. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, A.E. (1994). Statistically defined backgrounds: performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model. J Opt Soc Am A, 11, 1237–1242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, A.E. (1995). Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. Med Phys, 22, 643–655.Google Scholar
Burgess, A.E. (1999). The Rose model revisited. J Opt Soc Am A, 16, 633–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, A.E., Judy, P.F. (2007). Signal detection in power-law noise: effect of spectrum exponents. J Opt Soc Am A, 24, B52– B60.Google Scholar
Burgess, A.E., Wagner, R.F., Jennings, R.J., Barlow, H.B. (1981). Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. Science, 214, 93–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, A.E., Li, X., Abbey, C.K. (1997). Visual signal detectability with two noise components: anomalous masking effects. J Opt Soc Am A, 14, 2420–2442.Google Scholar
Diaz, I., Abbey, C.K., Timberg, P.A.S., Eckstein, M.P., Verdun, F.R., Castella, C., Bochud, F.O. (2015). Derivation of an observer model adapted to irregular signals based on convolution channels. IEEE Trans Med Imag, 34, 1428–1435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckstein, M.P., Whiting, J.S. (1995). Lesion detection in structured noise. Acad Radiol, 2, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukunaga, K. (1972). Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gang, G.J., Stayman, J.W., Zbijewski, W., Siewerdsen, J.H. (2014). Task-based detectability in CT image reconstruction by filtered backprojection and penalized likelihood estimation. Med Phys, 41, 081902 1–19.Google Scholar
Gifford, H.C., Pretorius, P.H., King, M.A. (2003). Comparison of human- and model-observer LROC studies. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 5034, 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford, H.C., King, M.A., Pretorius, P.H., Wells, R.G. (2005). A comparison of human and model observers in multislice LROC studies. IEEE Trans Med Imag, 24, 160–169.Google Scholar
Gifford, H.C., Kinahan, P.E., Lartizien, C., King, M.A. (2007). Evaluation of multiclass model observers in PET LROC studies. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 54, 116–123.Google Scholar
Green, D.M., Swets, J.A. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gur, D., Sumkin, J.H., Rockette, H.E., et al. (2004). Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst, 96, 185–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, K.M. (1979). Detectability in computed tomographic images. Med Phys, 6, 441–451.Google Scholar
Ikejimba, L.C., Kiarashi, N., Ghate, S.V., Samei, E., Lo, J.Y. (2014). Task-based strategy for optimized contrast enhanced breast imaging: analysis of six imaging techniques for mammography and tomosynthesis. Med Phys, 41,061908 1-14.Google Scholar
Judy, P.F., Swensson, R.G. (1981). Lesion detection and signal-to-noise ratio in CT images. Med Phys, 8, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judy, P.F., Swensson, R.G. (1987). Display thresholding of images and observer detection performance. J Opt Soc Am A, 4, 954–965.Google Scholar
Kelly, D.H. (1975). Spatial frequency selectivity in the retina. Vision Res, 15, 665–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kersten, D. (1984). Spatial summation in visual noise. Vision Res, 24, 1977–1990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahalanobis, P. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics. Proc Natl Inst Sci India (Calcutta), 2, 49–55.Google Scholar
Metz, C.E. (1986). ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol, 21, 720–733.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, K.J., Barrett, H.H. (1987). Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. J Opt Soc Am A, 4, 2447–2457.Google Scholar
Myers, K.J., Barrett, H.H., Borgstrom, M.C., Patton, D.D., Seeley, G.W. (1985). Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging. J Opt Soc Am A, 2, 1752–1759.Google Scholar
Obuchowski, N.A., Schoenhagen, P., Modic, M.T., Meziane, M., Budd, G.T. (2007). Incidence of advanced symptomatic disease as primary endpoint in screening and prevention trials. Am J Roentgenol, 189, 19–23.Google Scholar
Pisano, E.D., Gatsonis, C., Hendrick, E., et al. (2005). Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med, 353, 1773–1783.Google Scholar
Reiser, I., Nishikawa, R.M. (2006). Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic backgrounds. Med Phys, 33, 2905–2911.Google Scholar
Richard, S., Siewerdsen, J.H. (2007). Optimization of dual-energy imaging systems using generalized NEQ and imaging task. Med Phys, 34, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richard, S., Siewerdsen, J.H. (2008). Comparison of model and human observer performance for detection and discrimination tasks using dual-energy X-ray images. Med Phys, 35, 5043–5053.Google Scholar
Rolland, J.P., Barrett, H.H. (1992). Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. J Opt Soc Am A, 9, 649–658.Google Scholar
Rolland, J.P., Barrett, H.H., Seeley, G.W. (1991). Ideal versus human observer for long-tailed point spread functions: does deconvolution help? Phys Med Biol, 36, 1091–1109.Google Scholar
Rose, A. (1953). Quantum and noise limitations of the visual process. J Opt Soc Am, 43, 715–716.Google Scholar
Segui, J.A., Zhao, W. (2006). Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments. Med Phys, 33, 3711–3722.Google Scholar
Swets, J.A., Pickett, R.M. (1982). Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems: Methods from Signal Detection Theory. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tapiovaara, M.J., Wagner, R.F. (1993). SNR and noise measurements for medical imaging. I. A practical approach based on statistical decision theory. Phys Med Biol, 38, 71–92.Google Scholar
Wagner, R.F., Brown, D.G. (1985). Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems. Phys Med Biol, 30, 489–518.Google Scholar
Watson, A.B. (1987a). Efficiency of a model human image code. J Opt Soc Am A, 4, 2401–2417.Google Scholar
Watson, A.B. (1987b). The cortex transform: rapid computation of simulated neural images. Comput Vision, Graphics Image Proc, 39, 311–327.Google Scholar
Webster, M.A., De Valois, R.L. (1985). Relationship between spatial-frequency and orientation tuning of striate-cortex cells. J Opt Soc Am A, 2, 1124–1132.Google Scholar
Yao, J., Barrett, H.H. (1992). Predicting human performance by a channelized Hotelling observer model. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 1768, 161–168.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Pham, B.T., Eckstein, M.P. (2004). Automated optimization of JPEG 2000 encoder options based on observer model performance for detecting variable signals in X-ray coronary angiograms. IEEE Trans Med Imag, 23, 459–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Y., Pham, B.T., Eckstein, M.P. (2007). Evaluation of internal noise methods for Hotelling observer models. Med Phys, 34, 3312–3322.Google Scholar