24
Physical & Psychophysical Evaluation of a Flat- Surface CRT Display Monitor vs Traditional Curved- Surface Display Monitor for Use in PACS & Teleradiology Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3 Yoshiaki Iwamo, BEE 3 1 University of Arizona 2 DataRay Corporation 3 Totoku-Nagaoka Corporation

Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

  • Upload
    dom

  • View
    42

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Physical & Psychophysical Evaluation of a Flat-Surface CRT Display Monitor vs Traditional Curved-Surface Display Monitor for Use in PACS & Teleradiology. Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3 Yoshiaki Iwamo, BEE 3 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Physical & Psychophysical Evaluation of a Flat-Surface CRT Display

Monitor vs Traditional Curved-Surface Display Monitor for Use in

PACS & TeleradiologyElizabeth Krupinski, PhD1, Hans Roehrig, PhD1

Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD2, Kazuhiro Sato, BEE3

Yoshiaki Iwamo, BEE3

1 University of Arizona

2 DataRay Corporation

3 Totoku-Nagaoka Corporation

Page 2: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Purpose Radiographs based on the familiar projection

imaging are planar & are placed on a flat surface light box for viewing. Presenting digital radiographs on a CRT with a curved surface may cause distortions & increase reflections from ambient light.

To demonstrate that CRT displays with a flat surface are superior to CRT displays with a curved surface.

Page 3: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Why is the Display Important?

Page 4: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Distortions occurring when planar radiographs are presented on a display (CRT) with a curved surface

Planar radiograph

Radiograph presented onCRT with curved surface

Page 5: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Curved CRT

A straight-edge (black strip) was placed against the monitor surface. The SMPTE pattern was displayed. Note the effect of monitor surfacecurvature on the straight line of the SMPTE pattern to the right of the straight-edge. The line looks “bowed”. This could affect the accuracy of a radiologist measuring the length of, for example, a bone.

Page 6: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Flat CRT

A straight-edge (black strip) was placed against the monitor surface. The SMPTE pattern was displayed. Note that there is no “bowing” of the line of the SMPTE pattern. The radiologist is more likely to obtain an accurate measure with the flat-surface CRT.

Page 7: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Measurement of CRT performance parameters with a CCD camera

Page 8: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Potentialdifficulties when tryingto optimallyevaluate a CRTwith a curvedsurface usinga CCD camera

Page 9: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Monitors EvaluatedTwo DataRay DR96 monochrome

(1600 x 1200) portrait CRT monitors– One had the traditional curved-surface

(C) glass faceplate– One had a new flat-surface (F) glass

faceplate– Both calibrated to the DICOM 14

standard

Page 10: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Measurement of Veiling Glare

(Image of a Circle)

Page 11: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Veiling Glare

Page 12: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Display Functions

Page 13: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Uniformity

Uniformity of Curved CRT

Page 14: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Psychophysical Evaluation Stimuli = grating (bar) patterns

– 7 pixels on & 7 pixels off (2 cm x 2 cm)– 11 bars total– 10 horizontal & 10 vertical renditions of each of

9 gray levels

63 blank (no bars) controls 4 luminance levels (cd/m2)

– 16.5 42.4 81.9* 198.4*

* data collection still in progress

Page 15: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Viewing Conditions Viewing Distance = 50 cm; targets

subtended 2.3 deg visual angle All series of images were viewed twice

– Once with all ambient room lights off– Once with all ambient room lights on– The difference was ~ 10 cd/m2

There were 15 observers in each condition

Page 16: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

JND Results

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Gray Level Difference

% C

orre

ct 16.5 F On16.5 F Off16.5 C On16.5 C Off

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Gray Level Difference

% C

orre

ct 42.4 F On42.4 F Off42.4 C On42.4 C Off

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Gray Level Difference

% C

orre

ct 81.9 F On81.9 F Off81.9 C On81.9 C Off

Page 17: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

JND Results - 50% Correct

Flat Flat Curve Curve

On Off On Off

16.5 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.5

42.4 2.2 1.7 2.5 1.6

81.9 2.4 2.2 3.0 2.4

Page 18: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

JND Conclusions 16.5 cd/m2

– Flat surface = no significant difference lights on vs lights off

– Curved surface = lights on significantly worse performance (higher JND) than lights off

42.4 cd/m2

– Both flat & curved surfaces = lights on significantly worse performance than off

– Difference significantly greater for curved

Page 19: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Clinical Images

4 radiologists viewed a series of 10 clinical images side by side on the two monitors

All reported that they preferred the flat surface monitor because of lower reflections, but could not see any differences in terms of available diagnostic information

Page 20: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Reflection of room lights & other light emitting structures off CRTs with flat & curved surfaces

Page 21: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Reflections

SMPTE pattern displayedphotographed from below (left = flat; right = curved)

SMPTE pattern displayedphotographed straight on(left = flat; right = curved)

Page 22: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Reflections

Lights off monitor onphotographed from below.(left = flat; right = curved)

Lights off monitor onphotographed straight on.(left = flat; right = curved)

Page 23: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Reflections

Lights on monitor offphotographed from below.(left = flat; right = curved)

Lights on monitor offphotographed straight on.(left = flat; right = curved)

Page 24: Elizabeth Krupinski, PhD 1 , Hans Roehrig, PhD 1 Toshihiko Furukawa, PhD 2 , Kazuhiro Sato, BEE 3

Conclusions The major benefit of the flat-surface CRT

appears to be a significant reduction in glare from reflections

It is unlikely that diagnostic performance is affected significantly

Reduced glare/reflections may reduce eye strain & fatigue - this may represent a significant benefit especially for radiologists viewing images for long periods of time