Book contents
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques, Second Edition
- Reviews
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Medical Image Perception
- Part I Historical Reflections and Theoretical Foundations
- 2 A Short History of Image Perception in Medical Radiology
- 3 Spatial Vision Research without Noise
- 4 Signal Detection Theory: A Brief History
- 5 Signal Detection in Radiology
- 6 Lessons from Dinners with the Giants of Modern Image Science*
- 7 Perception in Context
- Part II Science of Image Perception
- Part III Perception Metrology
- Part IV Clinical Performance Assessment
- Part V Computational Perception
- Part VI Applied Perception
- Index
- References
7 - Perception in Context
from Part I - Historical Reflections and Theoretical Foundations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2018
Book contents
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques, Second Edition
- Reviews
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Medical Image Perception
- Part I Historical Reflections and Theoretical Foundations
- 2 A Short History of Image Perception in Medical Radiology
- 3 Spatial Vision Research without Noise
- 4 Signal Detection Theory: A Brief History
- 5 Signal Detection in Radiology
- 6 Lessons from Dinners with the Giants of Modern Image Science*
- 7 Perception in Context
- Part II Science of Image Perception
- Part III Perception Metrology
- Part IV Clinical Performance Assessment
- Part V Computational Perception
- Part VI Applied Perception
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques , pp. 82 - 92Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Barten, P.G.J. (1992). Physical model for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye. Proc SPIE: Human vision, visual processing, and digital display III, 1666, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barten, P.G.J. (1999). Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and its Effects on Image Quality. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beam, C.A., Krupinski, E.A., Kundel, H.L., Sickles, E.A., Wagner, R.F. (2006). The place of medical image perception in 21st-century health care. J Am Coll Radiol, 3(6), 409–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birkelo, C.C., Chamberlain, W.E, Phelps, P.S. (1947). Tuberculosis case finding: comparison of effectiveness of various roentgenographic and photofluorographic methods. JAMA, 133, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brook, O.R., O’Connell, A.M., Thornton, E., Eisenberg, R.L., Mendiratta- Lala, M., Kruskal, J.B. (2010). Quality initiatives: anatomy and pathophysiology of errors occurring in clinical radiology practice. RadioGraphics, 30, 1401–1410.Google Scholar
Chakraborty, D.P. (2013). A brief history of FROC paradigm data analysis. Acad Radiol, 20, 915–919.Google Scholar
Chesters, M.S. (1992). Human visual perception and ROC methodology in medical imaging. Phys Med Biol, 37, 1433–1476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dong, L., Chen, Y., Gale, A., Phillips, P. (2016). Eye tracking method compatible with dual-screen mammography workstation. Procedia Comput Sci, 90, 206–211.Google Scholar
Donovan, T., Manning, D.J., Crawford, T. (2008). Performance changes in lung nodule detection following perceptual feedback of eye movements. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 6917, 691703.Google Scholar
Evans, K.K., Birdwell, R.L., Wolfe, J.M. (2013). If you don’t find it often, you often don’t find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS One, 8(5), e64366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garland, L.H. (1949). On the scientific evaluation of diagnostic procedures. Radiology, 52, 309–328.Google Scholar
Graber, M.L. (2013). The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine. BMJ Qual Saf, Suppl 2, ii21–ii27.Google Scholar
Gur, D., Rockette, H.E., Armfield, D.R., Blachar, A., Bogan, J.K., Brancatelli, G., Britton, C.A., Brown, M.L., Davis, P.L., Ferris, J.V., Fuhrman, C.R., Golla, S.K., Katyal, S., Lacomis, J.M., McCook, B.M., Thaete, F.L., Warfel, T.E. (2003). Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology, 228(1), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakim, C.M., Sena, L.C., Degnana, A., Delica, J., Paia, S., Sagreiyaa, H., Sparrowa, M., Thomasa, E., Yannesa, M., Gur, D. (2017). The effect of prevalence of disease on performance of residents and fellows during training for interpreting DBT in a test-train-test observer study. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 10136, 1013603.Google Scholar
Krupinski, E.A. (2010). Current perspectives in medical image perception. Atten Percept Psychophys, 72(5), 1205–1217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krupinski, E.A., Kallergi, M. (2007). Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. Radiology, 242, 671–682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krupinski, E.A., Shartz, K., Caldwell, R., Madsen, M., Berbaum, K. (2017). Does fatigue have any impact on satisfaction of search? Proc SPIE Med Imag, 10136, 1013605-1.Google Scholar
Kundel, H.L. (1979). Images, image quality and observer performance: new horizons in radiology lecture. Radiology, 132, 265–271.Google Scholar
Kundel, H.L. (2006). History of research in medical image perception. J Am Coll Radiol, 3(6), 402–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C.S., Nagy, P.G., Weaver, S.J., Newman-Toker, D.E. (2013). Cognitive and factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. AJR, 201, 611–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallet, S., Halligan, S., Thompson, M., Collins, G.S., Altman, D.G. (2012). Interpreting diagnostic accuracy studies for patient care. BMJ, 344, e3999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakhleh, R.E., Nosé, V., Colasacco, C., Fatheree, L.A., Lillemoe, T.J., McCrory, D.C., et al (2016). Interpretive diagnostic error reduction in surgical pathology and cytology. Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center and the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 140, 29–40.Google Scholar
National Cancer Intelligence Network (2011). www.ncin.org.uk/publications/data_briefings/cervical_incidence_and_screening (accessed October 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Rossmann, K., Wiley, B. (1970). The central problem in the study of radiographic image quality. Radiology, 96, 113–118.Google Scholar
Royal College of Radiologists. (2006). Standards for the reporting and interpretation of imaging investigations. www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/standards-reporting-and-interpretation-imaging-investigations (accessed October 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Saunders, R.S., Baker, J.A., Delong, D.M., Johnson, J.P., Samei, E. (2007). Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. Med Phys, 34, 3971–3981.Google Scholar
Szczepura, K.R., Manning, D.J. (2016). Validated novel software to measure the conspicuity index of lesions in DICOM images. Proc SPIE Med Imag, 9787, 978703.Google Scholar
Thompson, J.D., Chakraborty, D.P., Szczepura, K., Tootell, A.K., Vamvakas, I., Manning, D.J., Hogg, P. (2016). Effect of reconstruction methods and X-ray tube current–time product on nodule detection in an anthropomorphic thorax phantom: a crossed-modality JAFROC observer study. Med Phys, 43(3), 1265–1274.Google Scholar
Toomey, R.J., Ryan, J.T., McEntee, M.F., Evanoff, M.G., Chakraborty, D.P., McNulty, J.P., Manning, D.J., Thomas, E.M., Brennan, P.C. (2009). Diagnostic efficacy of handheld devices for emergency radiologic consultation. AJR, 194, 469–474.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J.M., Horowitz, T.S., Van Wert, M.J., Kenner, N.M., Place, S.S., Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen, 136(4), 623–638.Google Scholar
Zuley, M. (2010). Perceptual issues in reading mammograms. In: Samei, E., Krupinski, E. (eds.) The Handbook of Medical Image Perception and Techniques. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–379.Google Scholar