High luminance monochrome vs low luminance monochrome and color softcopy displays: Observer performance and visual search efficiency

Elizabeth A Krupinski, Hans Roehrig, Jiahua Fan, Takahiro Yoneda

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study evaluated the potential clinical utility of a high-performance (3 Mega-pixel) color display compared with two monochrome displays - one of comparable luminance (250 cd/m 2) and one of higher luminance (450 cd/m 2). Six radiologists viewed 50 DR chest images, half with nodules and half without, once on each display. Eye position was recorded on a subset of images. There was no statistically significant difference in ROC Az performance as a function of monitor (F = 1.176, p = 0.3127), although there was a clear trend towards the monochrome 450 cd/m 2 monitor being better than the monochrome 250 cd/m 2 monitor, which was better than the color monitor. In terms of total viewing time, there were no statistically significant differences between the three monitors (F = 1.478, p = 0.2298). The dwell times associated with true and false positive decisions were shortest for the high luminance monochrome display, longer for the low luminance monochrome, and longest for the low luminance color display. Dwells for the false negative decisions were longest for the high luminance monochrome display, shorter for the low luminance monochrome, and shortest for the low luminance color display. The true negative dwells were not significantly different. The study suggest high luminance displays may have an advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy and visual search efficiency for detecting nodules in chest images compared to both monochrome and color lower luminance displays, although these differences may have little clinical impact because they are relatively small.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationProgress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE
Volume6515
DOIs
StatePublished - 2007
EventMedical Imaging 2007: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment - San Diego, CA, United States
Duration: Feb 21 2007Feb 22 2007

Other

OtherMedical Imaging 2007: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
CountryUnited States
CitySan Diego, CA
Period2/21/072/22/07

Fingerprint

Luminance
Display devices
Color
Pixels

Keywords

  • Diagnostic accuracy
  • Luminance
  • Monitor color
  • Visual search

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Engineering(all)

Cite this

Krupinski, E. A., Roehrig, H., Fan, J., & Yoneda, T. (2007). High luminance monochrome vs low luminance monochrome and color softcopy displays: Observer performance and visual search efficiency. In Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE (Vol. 6515). [65150R] https://doi.org/10.1117/12.706298

High luminance monochrome vs low luminance monochrome and color softcopy displays : Observer performance and visual search efficiency. / Krupinski, Elizabeth A; Roehrig, Hans; Fan, Jiahua; Yoneda, Takahiro.

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6515 2007. 65150R.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Krupinski, EA, Roehrig, H, Fan, J & Yoneda, T 2007, High luminance monochrome vs low luminance monochrome and color softcopy displays: Observer performance and visual search efficiency. in Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. vol. 6515, 65150R, Medical Imaging 2007: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, San Diego, CA, United States, 2/21/07. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.706298
Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Fan J, Yoneda T. High luminance monochrome vs low luminance monochrome and color softcopy displays: Observer performance and visual search efficiency. In Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6515. 2007. 65150R https://doi.org/10.1117/12.706298
Krupinski, Elizabeth A ; Roehrig, Hans ; Fan, Jiahua ; Yoneda, Takahiro. / High luminance monochrome vs low luminance monochrome and color softcopy displays : Observer performance and visual search efficiency. Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6515 2007.
@inproceedings{1a9eb42302834a9b85a056f12e33099c,
title = "High luminance monochrome vs low luminance monochrome and color softcopy displays: Observer performance and visual search efficiency",
abstract = "This study evaluated the potential clinical utility of a high-performance (3 Mega-pixel) color display compared with two monochrome displays - one of comparable luminance (250 cd/m 2) and one of higher luminance (450 cd/m 2). Six radiologists viewed 50 DR chest images, half with nodules and half without, once on each display. Eye position was recorded on a subset of images. There was no statistically significant difference in ROC Az performance as a function of monitor (F = 1.176, p = 0.3127), although there was a clear trend towards the monochrome 450 cd/m 2 monitor being better than the monochrome 250 cd/m 2 monitor, which was better than the color monitor. In terms of total viewing time, there were no statistically significant differences between the three monitors (F = 1.478, p = 0.2298). The dwell times associated with true and false positive decisions were shortest for the high luminance monochrome display, longer for the low luminance monochrome, and longest for the low luminance color display. Dwells for the false negative decisions were longest for the high luminance monochrome display, shorter for the low luminance monochrome, and shortest for the low luminance color display. The true negative dwells were not significantly different. The study suggest high luminance displays may have an advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy and visual search efficiency for detecting nodules in chest images compared to both monochrome and color lower luminance displays, although these differences may have little clinical impact because they are relatively small.",
keywords = "Diagnostic accuracy, Luminance, Monitor color, Visual search",
author = "Krupinski, {Elizabeth A} and Hans Roehrig and Jiahua Fan and Takahiro Yoneda",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1117/12.706298",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "0819466336",
volume = "6515",
booktitle = "Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - High luminance monochrome vs low luminance monochrome and color softcopy displays

T2 - Observer performance and visual search efficiency

AU - Krupinski, Elizabeth A

AU - Roehrig, Hans

AU - Fan, Jiahua

AU - Yoneda, Takahiro

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - This study evaluated the potential clinical utility of a high-performance (3 Mega-pixel) color display compared with two monochrome displays - one of comparable luminance (250 cd/m 2) and one of higher luminance (450 cd/m 2). Six radiologists viewed 50 DR chest images, half with nodules and half without, once on each display. Eye position was recorded on a subset of images. There was no statistically significant difference in ROC Az performance as a function of monitor (F = 1.176, p = 0.3127), although there was a clear trend towards the monochrome 450 cd/m 2 monitor being better than the monochrome 250 cd/m 2 monitor, which was better than the color monitor. In terms of total viewing time, there were no statistically significant differences between the three monitors (F = 1.478, p = 0.2298). The dwell times associated with true and false positive decisions were shortest for the high luminance monochrome display, longer for the low luminance monochrome, and longest for the low luminance color display. Dwells for the false negative decisions were longest for the high luminance monochrome display, shorter for the low luminance monochrome, and shortest for the low luminance color display. The true negative dwells were not significantly different. The study suggest high luminance displays may have an advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy and visual search efficiency for detecting nodules in chest images compared to both monochrome and color lower luminance displays, although these differences may have little clinical impact because they are relatively small.

AB - This study evaluated the potential clinical utility of a high-performance (3 Mega-pixel) color display compared with two monochrome displays - one of comparable luminance (250 cd/m 2) and one of higher luminance (450 cd/m 2). Six radiologists viewed 50 DR chest images, half with nodules and half without, once on each display. Eye position was recorded on a subset of images. There was no statistically significant difference in ROC Az performance as a function of monitor (F = 1.176, p = 0.3127), although there was a clear trend towards the monochrome 450 cd/m 2 monitor being better than the monochrome 250 cd/m 2 monitor, which was better than the color monitor. In terms of total viewing time, there were no statistically significant differences between the three monitors (F = 1.478, p = 0.2298). The dwell times associated with true and false positive decisions were shortest for the high luminance monochrome display, longer for the low luminance monochrome, and longest for the low luminance color display. Dwells for the false negative decisions were longest for the high luminance monochrome display, shorter for the low luminance monochrome, and shortest for the low luminance color display. The true negative dwells were not significantly different. The study suggest high luminance displays may have an advantage in terms of diagnostic accuracy and visual search efficiency for detecting nodules in chest images compared to both monochrome and color lower luminance displays, although these differences may have little clinical impact because they are relatively small.

KW - Diagnostic accuracy

KW - Luminance

KW - Monitor color

KW - Visual search

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=35148873178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=35148873178&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1117/12.706298

DO - 10.1117/12.706298

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:35148873178

SN - 0819466336

SN - 9780819466334

VL - 6515

BT - Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

ER -