» Articles » PMID: 10847388

Active Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays for Clinical Imaging: Comparison with Cathode Ray Tube Displays

Overview
Journal J Digit Imaging
Publisher Springer
Date 2000 Jun 10
PMID 10847388
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Fifteen large-area, flat-panel displays used for clinical image review were evaluated for image quality and compared with 30 comparably sized cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Measurements were of image display patterns by Video Electronic Standards Association (VESA) and a commercial product. Field measurements were made of: maximum and minimum luminance, ambient lighting, characteristic curve (gamma), point shape and size, high-contrast resolution, uniformity, and distortion. Assessments were made of pixel defects, latent image patterns, ghosting artifacts, and viewing angle luminance. Also, a questionnaire was generated for users of the flat-panel and CRT units. Seventeen respondents indicated no preference for either flat panel or CRT. Results show these flat panels to have higher luminance (mean, 177.7 cd/m2); larger number of just noticeable differences (JNDs; n = 555), higher gamma, comparable uniformity, and warm-up time. CRTs had less angle viewing dependence and far fewer artifacts (ghosting and latent images). Our questionnaire showed active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCD) to be fully acceptable for clinical image viewing. Furthermore, the statistical results show that further testing for new AMLCDs of this type is unwarranted.

Citing Articles

Effect of LCD monitor type and observer experience on diagnostic performance in soft-copy interpretations of the maxillary sinus on panoramic radiographs.

Kim T, Choi J, Lee S, Huh K, Yi W, Heo M Imaging Sci Dent. 2011; 41(1):11-6.

PMID: 21977468 PMC: 3174453. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2011.41.1.11.


Comparison of liquid crystal versus cathode ray tube display for the detection of simulated chest lesions.

Oschatz E, Prokop M, Scharitzer M, Weber M, Balassy C, Schaefer-Prokop C Eur Radiol. 2004; 15(7):1472-6.

PMID: 15365756 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2488-9.


Diagnostic performance of liquid crystal and cathode-ray-tube monitors in brain computed tomography.

Partan G, Mayrhofer R, Urban M, Wassipaul M, Pichler L, Hruby W Eur Radiol. 2003; 13(10):2397-401.

PMID: 14534808 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-003-1822-y.


Liquid-crystal display monitors and cathode-ray tube monitors: a comparison of observer performance in the detection of small solitary pulmonary nodules.

Hwang S, Seo J, Choi B, Do K, Ko S, Lee S Korean J Radiol. 2003; 4(3):153-6.

PMID: 14530643 PMC: 2698081. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2003.4.3.153.


Understanding and optimizing laparoscopic videosystems.

Rivas H, CACCHIONE R, Allen J Surg Endosc. 2002; 16(9):1376.

PMID: 12296317 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-8269-5.


References
1.
Hemminger B, Dillon A, Johnston R, Muller K, DeLuca M, Coffey C . Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms. Med Phys. 1999; 26(11):2266-72. DOI: 10.1118/1.598740. View

2.
Roehrig H, Willis C, Damento M . Characterization of monochrome CRT display systems in the field. J Digit Imaging. 1999; 12(4):152-65. PMC: 3452426. DOI: 10.1007/BF03168851. View

3.
Hangiandreou N, Fetterly K, Felmlee J . Optimization of a contrast-detail-based method for electronic image display quality evaluation. J Digit Imaging. 1999; 12(2):60-7. PMC: 3452489. DOI: 10.1007/BF03168844. View

4.
Roehrig H . Image quality assurance for CRT display systems. J Digit Imaging. 1999; 12(1):1-2. PMC: 3452429. DOI: 10.1007/BF03168620. View

5.
Mattern C, Erickson B, King Jr B, Okryznski T . Impact of electronic imaging on clinician behavior in the urgent care setting. J Digit Imaging. 1999; 12(2 Suppl 1):148-51. PMC: 3452884. DOI: 10.1007/BF03168785. View