17 March 2015 What observer models best reflect low-contrast detectability in CT?
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to compare CT low-contrast detectability as measured via human perception experiments with observer model surrogates of image quality measured directly from the images. A phantom was designed with a range of low-contrast circular inserts representing 5 contrast levels and 3 sizes. The phantom was imaged repeatedly (20 times) on a third-generation dual-source CT scanner (SOMATOM Definition Force, Siemens Healthcare). Images were reconstructed at 0.6 mm slice thickness using filtered back projection (FBP) and advanced modeled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE) and were assessed by eleven blinded and independent readers using a two alternative forced choice (2AFC) detection experiment. The human scores were taken as the accuracy, averaged across observers. The predicted performance was computed directly from the images for several traditional image quality metrics and model observers including contrast to noise ratio (CNR), area weighted CNR (CNRa), non-prewhitening matched filter (NPW), non-prewhitening matched filter with an eye filter (NPWE), channelized Hotelling observer (CHO), and channelized Hotelling observer with internal noise (CHOi). The correlation between model observer predictions and human performance was assessed using linear regression analysis. The coefficient of determination (R2) was used as goodness-of-fit metric to determine how well each model observer predicts human performance. R2 was 0.11, 0.71, 0.73, 0.77, 0.60, and 0.72 for CNR, CNRa, NPW, NPWE, CHO, and CHOi, respectively. The findings demonstrate NPW, NPWE, and CHOi all to have strong correlation with human performance and could be used to optimize scan and reconstruction settings.
© (2015) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Justin Solomon, Justin Solomon, Ehsan Samei, Ehsan Samei, } "What observer models best reflect low-contrast detectability in CT?", Proc. SPIE 9416, Medical Imaging 2015: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, 94160I (17 March 2015); doi: 10.1117/12.2081655; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2081655
PROCEEDINGS
8 PAGES


SHARE
RELATED CONTENT


Back to Top