12 April 2002 Screen film versus digital mammography: a perceptual analysis of postprocessed hard copy images
Author Affiliations +
In this investigation we studied the imaging characteristics of a mammographic screen-film (MinR-2000, Eastman Kodak Co.) and an amorphous-silicon flat-panel digital mammography system (Senographe 2000D, GE Medical Systems) based on information perception by human observers. The focus of the study was to utilize an effective means to estimate the contrast-detail characteristics of x-ray imaging systems at various threshold levels to evaluate system performance with reduced observer subjectivity. We obtained three images of a contrast-detail phantom (CDMAM, Nuclear Associates) with screen-film and three images with digital mammography under identical exposure conditions. The digital images were printed using dry film printer (DryView 8600, Eastman Kodak Co.) after being windowed/leveled appropriately by two experienced radiologists. Seven observers reviewed the images and 'proportion correct' detection data were computed for each observer. A psychophysical signal detection model that hypothesizes a continuous decision variable internal to the observer with Gaussian probability density functions was used to fit the experimental observer data. Projection data from the detection curves at 50%, 62.5%, and 75% threshold levels were used to generate contrast-detail diagrams. Digital mammography, on average, exhibited lower (better) threshold contrast-detail characteristics compared to screen-film mammography.
© (2002) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Sankararaman Suryanarayanan, Sankararaman Suryanarayanan, Andrew Karellas, Andrew Karellas, Srinivasan Vedantham, Srinivasan Vedantham, Hetal Ved, Hetal Ved, Carl J. D'Orsi, Carl J. D'Orsi, } "Screen film versus digital mammography: a perceptual analysis of postprocessed hard copy images", Proc. SPIE 4686, Medical Imaging 2002: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, (12 April 2002); doi: 10.1117/12.462692; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.462692

Back to Top