AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wang, J.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wang, J.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, J. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 170, 105-108, Copyright © 1998 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Detection of small low-contrast objects in mammography: effect of viewbox masking and luminance

J Wang and JE Gray
Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235-9071, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Viewing conditions can affect an observer's performance in object detection. Our objective was to determine the effect of viewbox masking and luminance on the detection of small low-contrast objects revealed by mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammographic contrast- detail images having various film densities were viewed on masked and unmasked viewboxes. Similar images with fixed film contrast and density were viewed when luminance ranged from 250 to 8000 nits (1 nit = 1 cd/m2). RESULTS: Detection of small low-contrast objects was significantly easier using a masked viewbox with high luminance that using a regular unmasked viewbox. When a regular viewbox (approximately 3000 nits) was used masking had a more significant effect on films with high optical densities than on films with low optical densities. Brighter, masked viewboxes improved detection on films with higher optical densities. CONCLUSION: Better detection of small low-contrast objects results when mammographic images are masked and viewed on high- luminance viewboxes than when a regular unmasked viewbox is used.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
K J ROBSON
An investigation into the effects of suboptimal viewing conditions in screen-film mammography
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2008; 81(963): 219 - 231.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
D P Thompson, C J Koller, and J P Eatough
Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations
Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2007; 80(952): 256 - 260.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. H. Fuchsjager, C. M. Schaefer-Prokop, E. Eisenhuber, P. Homolka, M. Weber, M. A. Funovics, and M. Prokop
Impact of Ambient Light and Window Settings on the Detectability of Catheters on Soft-Copy Display of Chest Radiographs at Bedside
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2003; 181(5): 1415 - 1421.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.