Assessment of flat panel LCD primary class display performance based on AAPM TG 18 acceptance protocol

被引:21
作者
Jung, H
Kim, HJ
Kang, WS
Yoo, SK
Fujioka, K
Hasegawa, M
Samei, E
机构
[1] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, Res Inst Radiol Sci, Dept Radiol,BK21 Project Med Sci, Seoul 120752, South Korea
[2] Yonsei Univ, Coll Med, CEMI, Res Inst Radiol Sci,Dept Med Engn, Seoul 120752, South Korea
[3] Totoku Elect Co Ltd, Tokyo 1698543, Japan
[4] Duke Univ, Dept Radiol Phys & Biomed Engn, Durham, NC 27710 USA
关键词
AAPM TG18; acceptance testing; flat panel display device; PACS;
D O I
10.1118/1.1764946
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
The image display is an important component of the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) and of digital imaging in general. In this paper, we assess the display performance of 32 different flat panel LCD devices, in terms of their reflection, luminance response, luminance uniformity, resolution, noise, veiling glare and color uniformity included in the tentative guidelines of the AAPM TG18 document version 8.1. We also report on the angular dependencies of luminance and contrast, which constitute one of the miscellaneous tests. The tools used included a telescopic photometer, which was also used as a colorimeter, an illuminance meter, light sources for the reflection assessment, light-blocking devices, and digital TG18 test patterns. The luminance ratio (LR), maximum luminance difference (DeltaL(max)) and deviation of contrast response with respect to that of DICOM GSDF were 379.2+/-61.0, 1.6+/-1.1%, and 4.84+/-0.58%, respectively. The maximum luminance nonuniformity was 9.2+/-3.9% for the 10% luminance of the TG18-UNL10 test pattern. In the luminance-based resolution test, the percent luminance difference (DeltaL) at the center was 0.78+/-0.42%. In all cases of noise testing, the rectangular target in each square in the three quadrants was visible, as were all 15 targets, except for the smallest one, in each corner pattern and the center pattern. The glare ratio (GR) was 2350+/-1460. The average color uniformity parameter, Delta(u',v'), across the display area of each display device was 0.002+/-0.001. Nevertheless, not all of the color uniformity parameters of the display devices associated with a workstation met the acceptance criteria. For 7 selected flat panel displays, the mean specular and diffuse reflection coefficients were 0.0061+/-0.0010 and 0.0017+/-0.0005 cd/m(2) per lux, respectively. All of the test results conformed to the criteria recommended by AAPM TG18, indicating that the displays were fully acceptable for diagnostic image interpretation. The maximum viewing angle conforming to the DICOM 3.14 standard luminance responses with a 10% tolerance was found to be approximately 50degrees in both directions along the vertical axis, 10degrees in the upper direction and 20degrees in the lower direction along the horizontal axis, and 20degrees in the upper direction and 10degrees in the lower direction along the diagonal axis. Therefore, a radiologist should interpret a displayed image by considering the physical characteristics of the narrow viewing angle of the AMLCD displays. The acceptance testing protocol described herein demonstrates the successful clinical implementation of the guidelines for the viewing conditions of medical displays, and if implemented with a QC program, can be used to determine when LCD devices used for diagnostic interpretation need to be upgraded. (C) 2004 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
引用
收藏
页码:2155 / 2164
页数:10
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
*AAPM TG18, ASS DISPL PERF MED I
[2]  
[Anonymous], QUALITY ASSURANCE QU
[3]  
*DIN, 2001, 6868572001 DIN
[4]   Image quality degradation by light scattering in display devices [J].
Flynn, MJ ;
Badano, A .
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 1999, 12 (02) :50-59
[5]   High-fidelity electronic display of digital radiographs [J].
Flynn, MJ ;
Kanicki, J ;
Badano, A ;
Eyler, WR .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 1999, 19 (06) :1653-1669
[6]   TEST PATTERN FOR VIDEO DISPLAYS AND HARD-COPY CAMERAS [J].
GRAY, JE ;
LISK, KG ;
HADDICK, DH ;
HARSHBARGER, JH ;
OOSTERHOF, A ;
SCHWENKER, R .
RADIOLOGY, 1985, 154 (02) :519-527
[7]   Cathode ray tube quality control and acceptance testing program: Initial results for clinical PACS displays [J].
Groth, DS ;
Bernatz, SN ;
Fetterly, KA ;
Hangiandreou, NJ .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 2001, 21 (03) :719-732
[8]  
*IEC, 1994, 6122325 IEC CIE CENT
[9]   Why and how is soft copy reading possible in clinical practice? [J].
Mertelmeier, T .
JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 1999, 12 (01) :3-11
[10]  
*NEMA, 3142001 NEMAPS