Potential use of a large-screen display for interpreting radiographic images

Elizabeth A Krupinski, Hans Roehrig, William Berger, Sandeep Dalal, Douglas Stanton

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

Abstract

Radiology has readily made the transition to the digital reading room. One commodity left behind when moving to digital displays however is display real estate. Even with multiple monitors radiologists cannot display numerous images as they did on a film alternator. We evaluated a large-screen rear-projection display (Philips Electronics) for potential use in radiology. Resolution was 1920 x 1080 with a 44-inch diagonal size and it was a color display. For comparison we used the IBM 9 Mpixel color display (22-inch diagonal) set to a comparable resolution and maximum luminance. Diagnostic accuracy with a series of bone images with subtle fractures and six observers was comparable (F = 0.3170, p = 0.5743) to traditional computer monitor. Viewing time, however, was significantly shorter (t = 6.723, p ≤ 0.0001) with the large display for both normal and fracture images. On average, readers sat significantly closer (t = 5.578, p = 0.0026) to the small display than the large display. Four of the 6 radiologists preferred the smaller display, judging it to yield a sharper image. Half of the readers thought the black level was better with the large display and half with the small display. Most of the radiologists thought the large-screen display has potential for use in conferencing situations or those in which multiple viewers need to see images simultaneously.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationProgress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE
Volume6146
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006
EventMedical Imaging 2006: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment - San Diego, CA, United States
Duration: Feb 14 2006Feb 16 2006

Other

OtherMedical Imaging 2006: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
CountryUnited States
CitySan Diego, CA
Period2/14/062/16/06

Fingerprint

Display devices
Radiology
Color
Computer monitors
Luminance
Bone
Electronic equipment

Keywords

  • Large-screen display
  • Observer performance
  • Physical characterization

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Engineering(all)

Cite this

Krupinski, E. A., Roehrig, H., Berger, W., Dalal, S., & Stanton, D. (2006). Potential use of a large-screen display for interpreting radiographic images. In Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE (Vol. 6146). [614607] https://doi.org/10.1117/12.644257

Potential use of a large-screen display for interpreting radiographic images. / Krupinski, Elizabeth A; Roehrig, Hans; Berger, William; Dalal, Sandeep; Stanton, Douglas.

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6146 2006. 614607.

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

Krupinski, EA, Roehrig, H, Berger, W, Dalal, S & Stanton, D 2006, Potential use of a large-screen display for interpreting radiographic images. in Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. vol. 6146, 614607, Medical Imaging 2006: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, San Diego, CA, United States, 2/14/06. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.644257
Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Berger W, Dalal S, Stanton D. Potential use of a large-screen display for interpreting radiographic images. In Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6146. 2006. 614607 https://doi.org/10.1117/12.644257
Krupinski, Elizabeth A ; Roehrig, Hans ; Berger, William ; Dalal, Sandeep ; Stanton, Douglas. / Potential use of a large-screen display for interpreting radiographic images. Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6146 2006.
@inproceedings{edfe602ce44641788359f5b513935e24,
title = "Potential use of a large-screen display for interpreting radiographic images",
abstract = "Radiology has readily made the transition to the digital reading room. One commodity left behind when moving to digital displays however is display real estate. Even with multiple monitors radiologists cannot display numerous images as they did on a film alternator. We evaluated a large-screen rear-projection display (Philips Electronics) for potential use in radiology. Resolution was 1920 x 1080 with a 44-inch diagonal size and it was a color display. For comparison we used the IBM 9 Mpixel color display (22-inch diagonal) set to a comparable resolution and maximum luminance. Diagnostic accuracy with a series of bone images with subtle fractures and six observers was comparable (F = 0.3170, p = 0.5743) to traditional computer monitor. Viewing time, however, was significantly shorter (t = 6.723, p ≤ 0.0001) with the large display for both normal and fracture images. On average, readers sat significantly closer (t = 5.578, p = 0.0026) to the small display than the large display. Four of the 6 radiologists preferred the smaller display, judging it to yield a sharper image. Half of the readers thought the black level was better with the large display and half with the small display. Most of the radiologists thought the large-screen display has potential for use in conferencing situations or those in which multiple viewers need to see images simultaneously.",
keywords = "Large-screen display, Observer performance, Physical characterization",
author = "Krupinski, {Elizabeth A} and Hans Roehrig and William Berger and Sandeep Dalal and Douglas Stanton",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1117/12.644257",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "0819464252",
volume = "6146",
booktitle = "Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Potential use of a large-screen display for interpreting radiographic images

AU - Krupinski, Elizabeth A

AU - Roehrig, Hans

AU - Berger, William

AU - Dalal, Sandeep

AU - Stanton, Douglas

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - Radiology has readily made the transition to the digital reading room. One commodity left behind when moving to digital displays however is display real estate. Even with multiple monitors radiologists cannot display numerous images as they did on a film alternator. We evaluated a large-screen rear-projection display (Philips Electronics) for potential use in radiology. Resolution was 1920 x 1080 with a 44-inch diagonal size and it was a color display. For comparison we used the IBM 9 Mpixel color display (22-inch diagonal) set to a comparable resolution and maximum luminance. Diagnostic accuracy with a series of bone images with subtle fractures and six observers was comparable (F = 0.3170, p = 0.5743) to traditional computer monitor. Viewing time, however, was significantly shorter (t = 6.723, p ≤ 0.0001) with the large display for both normal and fracture images. On average, readers sat significantly closer (t = 5.578, p = 0.0026) to the small display than the large display. Four of the 6 radiologists preferred the smaller display, judging it to yield a sharper image. Half of the readers thought the black level was better with the large display and half with the small display. Most of the radiologists thought the large-screen display has potential for use in conferencing situations or those in which multiple viewers need to see images simultaneously.

AB - Radiology has readily made the transition to the digital reading room. One commodity left behind when moving to digital displays however is display real estate. Even with multiple monitors radiologists cannot display numerous images as they did on a film alternator. We evaluated a large-screen rear-projection display (Philips Electronics) for potential use in radiology. Resolution was 1920 x 1080 with a 44-inch diagonal size and it was a color display. For comparison we used the IBM 9 Mpixel color display (22-inch diagonal) set to a comparable resolution and maximum luminance. Diagnostic accuracy with a series of bone images with subtle fractures and six observers was comparable (F = 0.3170, p = 0.5743) to traditional computer monitor. Viewing time, however, was significantly shorter (t = 6.723, p ≤ 0.0001) with the large display for both normal and fracture images. On average, readers sat significantly closer (t = 5.578, p = 0.0026) to the small display than the large display. Four of the 6 radiologists preferred the smaller display, judging it to yield a sharper image. Half of the readers thought the black level was better with the large display and half with the small display. Most of the radiologists thought the large-screen display has potential for use in conferencing situations or those in which multiple viewers need to see images simultaneously.

KW - Large-screen display

KW - Observer performance

KW - Physical characterization

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745143247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745143247&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1117/12.644257

DO - 10.1117/12.644257

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:33745143247

SN - 0819464252

SN - 9780819464255

VL - 6146

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

ER -