3 March 2011 The effect of defect cluster size and interpolation on radiographic image quality
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
For digital X-ray detectors, the need to control factory yield and cost invariably leads to the presence of some defective pixels. Recently, a standard procedure was developed to identify such pixels for industrial applications. However, no quality standards exist in medical or industrial imaging regarding the maximum allowable number and size of detector defects. While the answer may be application specific, the minimum requirement for any defect specification is that the diagnostic quality of the images be maintained. A more stringent criterion is to keep any changes in the images due to defects below the visual threshold. Two highly sensitive image simulation and evaluation methods were employed to specify the fraction of allowable defects as a function of defect cluster size in general radiography. First, the most critical situation of the defect being located in the center of the disease feature was explored using image simulation tools and a previously verified human observer model, incorporating a channelized Hotelling observer. Detectability index d' was obtained as a function of defect cluster size for three different disease features on clinical lung and extremity backgrounds. Second, four concentrations of defects of four different sizes were added to clinical images with subtle disease features and then interpolated. Twenty observers evaluated the images against the original on a single display using a 2-AFC method, which was highly sensitive to small changes in image detail. Based on a 50% just-noticeable difference, the fraction of allowed defects was specified vs. cluster size.
© (2011) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Karin Töpfer, Karin Töpfer, Kwok L. Yip, Kwok L. Yip, } "The effect of defect cluster size and interpolation on radiographic image quality", Proc. SPIE 7966, Medical Imaging 2011: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 79660V (3 March 2011); doi: 10.1117/12.878289; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.878289
PROCEEDINGS
9 PAGES


SHARE
Back to Top