Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T09:18:37.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Lessons from Dinners with the Giants of Modern Image Science*

from Part I - Historical Reflections and Theoretical Foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

By
Robert Wagner
Edited by
Ehsan Samei  and
Elizabeth A. Krupinski
Ehsan Samei
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center, Durham
Elizabeth A. Krupinski
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques , pp. 76 - 81
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert, M., Maidment, A.D.A. (2000). Linear response theory for detectors consisting of discrete arrays. Med Phys, 27, 2417–2434.Google Scholar
Barger, A.V., Block, W.F., Toropov, Y., Grist, T.M., Mistretta, C.A. (2002). Time-resolved contrast-enhanced imaging with isotropic resolution and broad coverage using an undersampled 3D projection trajectory. Magn Reson Med, 48, 297–305.Google Scholar
Barrett, H.H., Myers, K.J. (2004). Foundations of Image Science. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Barrett, H.H., Yao, J., Rolland, J.P., Myers, K.J. (1993). Model observers for assessment of image quality. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 90, 9758–9765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, H.H., Denny, J.L., Wagner, R.F., Myers, K.J. (1995). Objective assessment of image quality. II. Fisher information, Fourier crosstalk, and figures of merit for task performance. J Opt Soc Am, A12, 834–852.Google Scholar
Barrett, H.H., Wagner, R.F., Myers, K.J. (1997). Correlated point processes in radiological imaging. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 3032, 110–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beam, C., Layde, P.M., Sullivan, D.C. (1996). Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med, 156, 209–213.Google Scholar
Beiden, S.V., Wagner, R.F., Campbell, G., Metz, C.E., Jiang, Y. (2001). Components-of-variance models for random-effects ROC analysis: the case of unequal variance structures across modalities. Acad Radiol, 8, 605–615.Google Scholar
Burgess, A.E. (1999). The Rose model revisited. J Opt Soc Am, A16, 633–646.Google Scholar
Burgess, A.E., Shaw, R., Lubin, J. (1999). Noise in imaging systems and human vision. J Opt Soc Am, A16, 618.Google Scholar
Burgess, A.E., Jacobson, F.L., Judy, P.F. (2001). Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. Med Phys, 28, 419–437.Google Scholar
Cunningham, I.A., Shaw, R. (1999). Signal-to-noise optimization of medical imaging systems. J Opt Soc Am, A16, 621–632.Google Scholar
Dainty, J.C., Shaw, R. (1974). Image Science. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gagne, R.M., Jafroudi, H., Jennings, R.J., et al. (1996). Digital mammography using storage phosphor plates and a computer-designed X-ray system. In: Doi, K., Giger, M.L., Nishikawa, R.M., Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) Digital Mammography ‘96. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 133–138.Google Scholar
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). (1996). Report #54. Medical Imaging: The Assessment of Image Quality. Bethesda, MD: International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements.Google Scholar
Joseph, P.M., Schulz, R.A. (1980). View sampling requirements in fan beam computed tomography. Med Phys, 7, 692–702.Google Scholar
Kundel, H.L. (2000). Visual search in medical images. In: Beutel, J., Kundel, H.L., Van Metter, R.L. (eds.) Handbook of Medical Imaging. Vol. 1. Physics and Psychophysics. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press, pp. 837–858.Google Scholar
Lundqvist, M., Danielsson, M., Cederstrom, B., et al. (2003). Measurements on a full-field digital mammography system with a photon counting crystalline silicon detector. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 5030–5031, 547–552.Google Scholar
Metz, C.E., Wagner, R.F., Doi, K., et al. (1995). Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems. Med Phys, 22, 1057–1061.Google Scholar
Myers, K.J., Wagner, R.F., Hanson, K.M. (1993). Binary task performance on images reconstructed using MEMSYS 3: comparison of machine and human observers. In: Mohammad-Djafari, A., Demoment, G. (eds.) Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods. Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic, pp. 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, D.C., Grist, T.M., Korosec, F.R., et al. (2000). Undersampled projection reconstruction applied to MR angiography. Magn Reson Med, 43, 91–101.Google Scholar
Rabbani, M., Shaw, R., Van Metter, R. (1987). Detective quantum efficiency of imaging systems with amplifying and scattering mechanisms. J Opt Soc Am, A4, 895–901.Google Scholar
Rose, A. (1946). A unified approach to the performance of photographic film, television pickup tubes and the human eye. J Soc Motion Pict Eng, 47, 273–294.Google Scholar
Rose, A. (1948). The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. J Opt Soc Am, 38, 196–208.Google Scholar
Rose, A. (1953). Quantum and noise limitations of the visual process. J Opt Soc Am, 43, 715–716.Google Scholar
Rose, A. (1973). Vision – Human and Electronic. New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Rose, A. (1976). The challenge of electronic photography. J Appl Photographic Engineering, 2, 70–74.Google Scholar
Samei, E., Eyler, W., Baron, L. (2000). Effects of anatomical structure on signal detection. In: Beutel, J., Kundel, H.L., Van Metter, R.L. (eds.) Handbook of Medical Imaging. Vol. 1. Physics and Psychophysics. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press, pp. 655–682.Google Scholar
Schade, O.H. (1975). Image Quality: A Comparison of Photographic and Television Systems. Princeton, NJ: RCA Laboratories.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. (2003). End-to-end linearity considerations for photon-limited detection and display systems. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 5030, 414–421.Google Scholar
Tapiovaara, M.J., Wagner, R.F. (1985). SNR and DQE analysis of broad spectrum X-ray imaging. Phys Med Biol, 30, 519–529.Google Scholar
Tingberg, A., Bath, M., Hakansson, M., et al. (2004). Comparison of two methods for evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine radiographs. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 5372, 251–262.Google Scholar
Vigen, K.K., Peters, D.C., Grist, T.M., Block, W.F., Mistretta, C.A. (2000). Undersampled projection-reconstruction imaging for time-resolved contrast-enhanced imaging. Magn Reson Med, 43, 170–176.Google Scholar
Wagner, R.F., Brown, D.G. (1985). Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems. Phys Med Biol, 30, 489–518.Google Scholar
Wagner, R.F., Weaver, K.E. (1972). An assortment of image quality indexes for radiographic film-screen combinations – can they be resolved? Proc SPIE Med Imag, 35, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R.F., Beiden, S.V., Campbell, G., Metz, C.E., Sacks, W.M. (2002). Assessment of medical imaging and computer-assist systems: lessons from recent experience. Acad Radiol, 9, 1264–1277.Google Scholar
Wagner, R.F., Beiden, S.V., Campbell, G., Metz, C.E., Sacks, W.M. (2003). Contemporary issues for experimental design in assessment of medical imaging and computer-assist systems. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 5034, 213–224.Google Scholar
Wagner, R.F., Metz, C.E., Campbell, G. (2007). Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. Acad Radiol, 14, 723–748.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×