TY - GEN
T1 - Potential use of a large-screen display for interpreting radiographic images
AU - Krupinski, Elizabeth
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
T3 - Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE
BT - Medical Imaging 2006
T2 - Medical Imaging 2006: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment
Y2 - 14 February 2006 through 16 February 2006
ER -