Dose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon x-ray detector for digital radiography

被引:29
作者
Aufrichtig, R
Xue, P
机构
[1] Perkin Elmer, GE Med Syst, Xray Detector Engn, Santa Clara, CA 95054 USA
[2] GE Med Syst, Xray Syst Engn, Milwaukee, WI USA
关键词
D O I
10.1088/0031-9155/45/9/316
中图分类号
R318 [生物医学工程];
学科分类号
0831 ;
摘要
The effect of dose reduction on low-contrast detectability is investigated theoretically and experimentally for a production grade amorphous silicon (a-Si) x-ray detector and compared with a standard thoracic screen-film combination. A non-prewhitening matched filter observer model modified to include a spatial response function and internal noise for the human visual system (HVS) is used to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) related to object detectability. Other inputs to the SNR calculation are the detective quantum efficiency (DQE) and the modulation transfer function (MTF) of the imaging system. Besides threshold detectability, the model predicts the equivalent perception dose ratio (EPDR), which is the fraction of the screen-him exposure for which the digital detector provides equal detectability. Images of a contrast-detail phantom are obtained with the digital detector at dose levels corresponding to 27%, 41%, 63% and 100% of the dose used for screen-film. The images are used in a four-alternative forced choice (4-AFC) observer perception study in order to measure threshold detectability. A statistically significant improvement in contrast detectability is measured with the digital detector at 100% and 63% of the screen-film dose. There is no statistical difference between screen-film and digital at 41% of the dose. On average, the experimental EPDR is 44%, which agrees well with the model prediction of 40%.
引用
收藏
页码:2653 / 2669
页数:17
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], SIGNAL DETECTION REC
[2]   Empirical investigation of the signal performance of a high-resolution, indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imager (AMFPI) for fluoroscopic and radiographic operation [J].
Antonuk, LE ;
ElMohri, Y ;
Siewerdsen, JH ;
Yorkston, J ;
Huang, W ;
Scarpine, VE ;
Street, RA .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1997, 24 (01) :51-70
[3]   PERCEPTUAL COMPARISON OF PULSED AND CONTINUOUS FLUOROSCOPY [J].
AUFRICHTIG, R ;
XUE, P ;
THOMAS, CW ;
GILMORE, GC ;
WILSON, DL .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1994, 21 (02) :245-256
[4]   Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography [J].
Aufrichtig, R .
MEDICAL PHYSICS, 1999, 26 (07) :1349-1358
[5]   MODEL FOR PERCEPTION OF PULSED FLUOROSCOPY IMAGE SEQUENCES [J].
AUFRICHTIG, R ;
THOMAS, CW ;
XUE, P ;
WILSON, DL .
JOURNAL OF THE OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA A-OPTICS IMAGE SCIENCE AND VISION, 1994, 11 (12) :3167-3176
[6]   Experiences with computed radiography: Can we afford the cost? [J].
Bragg, DG ;
Murray, KA ;
Tripp, D .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1997, 169 (04) :935-941
[7]  
BUNCH PC, 1992, P SOC PHOTO-OPT INS, V1653, P46, DOI 10.1117/12.59484
[8]   EFFICIENCY OF HUMAN VISUAL SIGNAL DISCRIMINATION [J].
BURGESS, AE ;
WAGNER, RF ;
JENNINGS, RJ ;
BARLOW, HB .
SCIENCE, 1981, 214 (4516) :93-94
[9]   VISUAL SIGNAL-DETECTION .4. OBSERVER INCONSISTENCY [J].
BURGESS, AE ;
COLBORNE, B .
JOURNAL OF THE OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA A-OPTICS IMAGE SCIENCE AND VISION, 1988, 5 (04) :617-627
[10]   VISUAL SIGNAL-DETECTION .2. SIGNAL-LOCATION IDENTIFICATION [J].
BURGESS, AE ;
GHANDEHARIAN, H .
JOURNAL OF THE OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA A-OPTICS IMAGE SCIENCE AND VISION, 1984, 1 (08) :906-910