Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 5 , Pages 539-546 , May 2007

Digital Mammography: Comparative Performance of Color LCD and Monochrome CRT Displays

  • Ehsan Samei, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Duke Advanced Imaging Laboratories, Departments of Radiology Physics and Biomedical Engineering, and Medical Physics Graduate Program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: E.S.
    • ,
  • Ananth Poolla, MS

      Affiliations

    • Fischer Imaging Corporation, Denver, CO
    • ,
  • Michael J. Ulissey, MD

      Affiliations

    • Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, TX
    • ,
  • John M. Lewin, MD

      Affiliations

    • Diversified Radiology of Colorado, Denver, CO.

Received 9 November 2006 ,Accepted 16 January 2007.

References 

  1. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–1783
  2. Saunders RS, Samei E. Resolution and noise measurements of selected commercial medical displays. Med Phys. 2006;33:308–319
  3. Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, et al. Use of a human visual system model to predict observer performance with CRT vs LCD display of images. J Digit Imaging. 2004;17:258–263
  4. Saunders RS, Samei E, Baker JA, et al. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on utility for mammographic tasks. Acad Radiol. 2006;13:1317–1326
  5. Averbukh AN, Channin DS, Homhual P. Comparison of human observer performance of contrast-detail detection across multiple liquid crystal displays. J Digit Imaging. 2005;18:66–77
  6. Krupinski EA, Johnson J, Roehrig H, et al. On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions. Acad Radiol. 2005;12:957–964
  7. NEMA-PS3.14 (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: grayscale display standard function). Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 2000;
  8. Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, et al. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys. 2005;32:1205–1225
  9. Samei E, Wright SL. The effect of viewing angle response on DICOM compliance of LCD displays. Proc SPIE. 2004;5371:170–177
  10. Saunders RS, Samei E, Hoeschen C. Impact of resolution and noise characteristics of digital radiographic detectors on the detectability of lung nodules. Med Phys. 2004;31:1603–1613
  11. Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis (Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method). Invest Radiol. 1992;27:723–731
  12. Swetz JA, Pickett RM. Evaluation of diagnostic systems. New York: Academic Press; 1982;
  13. Samei E. Assessment of display quality. In: Advances in digital radiography. Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Publication; 2003;p. 109–121
  14. Samei E. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: technological and psychophysical considerations for digital mammographic displays. Radiographics. 2005;25:491–501
  15. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Detectors for digital mammography. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2004;3:309–324
  16. Averbukh AN, Channin DS, Flynn MJ. Assessment of a novel, high-resolution, color, AMLCD for diagnostic medical image display: luminance performance and DICOM calibration. J Digit Imaging. 2003;16:270–279
  17. Samei E, Wright SL. Viewing angle performance of medical liquid crystal displays. Med Phys. 2006;33:645–654
  18. Fifadara DH, Averbukh AN, Channin DS, et al. Effect of viewing angle on luminance and contrast for a five-million-pixel monochrome display and a nine-million-pixel color liquid crystal display. J Digit Imaging. 2004;17:264–270
  19. Hwang SA, Seo JB, Choi BK, et al. Liquid-crystal display monitors and cathode-ray tube monitors: a comparison of observer performance in the detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules. Korean J Radiol. 2003;4:153–156
  20. Badano A, Hipper SJ, Jennings RJ. Luminance effects on display resolution and noise. Proc SPIE. 2002;4681:305–313
  21. Badano A, Fifadara DH. Goniometric and conoscopic measurements of angular display contrast for one-, three-, five-, and nine-million-pixel medical liquid crystal displays. Med Phys. 2004;31:3452–3460
  22. Badano A, Gallas BD. In: Detectability decreases with off-normal viewing in medical liquid crystal displays. 2005;p. 307;[abstract]. RSNA Proceedings

1 Supported in part by a grant from the NIH, R44 CA099068.

PII: S1076-6332(07)00029-3

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.01.022

Academic Radiology
Volume 14, Issue 5 , Pages 539-546 , May 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution