Analysis of different approaches to constructing perceptibility curves

Kazunori Yoshiura, Ulf Welander, Gang Li, Xie Qi Shi, William D. McDavid, Toshiyuki Kawazu, Masato Tatsumi, Kazutoshi Okamura, Shigenobu Kanda

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To construct and analyze perceptibility curves (PCs) according to two different approaches. Material and methods: A test object was used to determine the exposures and exposure differences between the total thickness of the test object and details consisting of holes of increasing depth. Two digital systems were employed to predict PCs according to the two different approaches. One approach defined exposures and exposure differences from dose-response functions, including secondary and scattered radiation. The other defined exposure and exposure differences as calculated transmitted radiation flux from the primary beam behind the test object, excluding secondary and scattered radiation. Integrals of the PCs and of the minimum perceptible gray-level differences as functions of background gray levels were calculated. The validity of the different types of PCs was analyzed. Another test object was used to predict observer performance for the two systems. Results: The integrals of PCs obtained according to the above first-mentioned approach and integrals of gray-level differences as functions of background gray level were equal. The same integrals using the second approach were different. The second approach, however, successfully predicted observer performance for the two systems. Conclusions: Only the first-mentioned approach gives PCs that are true representations of psychophysical properties. The second approach may, however, be employed to predict observer performance when different radiographic systems are employed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)38-48
Number of pages11
JournalOral Radiology
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2003

Fingerprint

Radiation

Keywords

  • Digital Radiography, Dental
  • Perception
  • Radiography, Dental

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Yoshiura, K., Welander, U., Li, G., Shi, X. Q., McDavid, W. D., Kawazu, T., ... Kanda, S. (2003). Analysis of different approaches to constructing perceptibility curves. Oral Radiology, 19(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02493290

Analysis of different approaches to constructing perceptibility curves. / Yoshiura, Kazunori; Welander, Ulf; Li, Gang; Shi, Xie Qi; McDavid, William D.; Kawazu, Toshiyuki; Tatsumi, Masato; Okamura, Kazutoshi; Kanda, Shigenobu.

In: Oral Radiology, Vol. 19, No. 1, 06.2003, p. 38-48.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yoshiura, K, Welander, U, Li, G, Shi, XQ, McDavid, WD, Kawazu, T, Tatsumi, M, Okamura, K & Kanda, S 2003, 'Analysis of different approaches to constructing perceptibility curves', Oral Radiology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 38-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02493290
Yoshiura K, Welander U, Li G, Shi XQ, McDavid WD, Kawazu T et al. Analysis of different approaches to constructing perceptibility curves. Oral Radiology. 2003 Jun;19(1):38-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02493290
Yoshiura, Kazunori ; Welander, Ulf ; Li, Gang ; Shi, Xie Qi ; McDavid, William D. ; Kawazu, Toshiyuki ; Tatsumi, Masato ; Okamura, Kazutoshi ; Kanda, Shigenobu. / Analysis of different approaches to constructing perceptibility curves. In: Oral Radiology. 2003 ; Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 38-48.
@article{22c632c56dfc419b903e4859d6794a19,
title = "Analysis of different approaches to constructing perceptibility curves",
abstract = "Objectives: To construct and analyze perceptibility curves (PCs) according to two different approaches. Material and methods: A test object was used to determine the exposures and exposure differences between the total thickness of the test object and details consisting of holes of increasing depth. Two digital systems were employed to predict PCs according to the two different approaches. One approach defined exposures and exposure differences from dose-response functions, including secondary and scattered radiation. The other defined exposure and exposure differences as calculated transmitted radiation flux from the primary beam behind the test object, excluding secondary and scattered radiation. Integrals of the PCs and of the minimum perceptible gray-level differences as functions of background gray levels were calculated. The validity of the different types of PCs was analyzed. Another test object was used to predict observer performance for the two systems. Results: The integrals of PCs obtained according to the above first-mentioned approach and integrals of gray-level differences as functions of background gray level were equal. The same integrals using the second approach were different. The second approach, however, successfully predicted observer performance for the two systems. Conclusions: Only the first-mentioned approach gives PCs that are true representations of psychophysical properties. The second approach may, however, be employed to predict observer performance when different radiographic systems are employed.",
keywords = "Digital Radiography, Dental, Perception, Radiography, Dental",
author = "Kazunori Yoshiura and Ulf Welander and Gang Li and Shi, {Xie Qi} and McDavid, {William D.} and Toshiyuki Kawazu and Masato Tatsumi and Kazutoshi Okamura and Shigenobu Kanda",
year = "2003",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1007/BF02493290",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "38--48",
journal = "Oral Radiology",
issn = "0911-6028",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Analysis of different approaches to constructing perceptibility curves

AU - Yoshiura, Kazunori

AU - Welander, Ulf

AU - Li, Gang

AU - Shi, Xie Qi

AU - McDavid, William D.

AU - Kawazu, Toshiyuki

AU - Tatsumi, Masato

AU - Okamura, Kazutoshi

AU - Kanda, Shigenobu

PY - 2003/6

Y1 - 2003/6

N2 - Objectives: To construct and analyze perceptibility curves (PCs) according to two different approaches. Material and methods: A test object was used to determine the exposures and exposure differences between the total thickness of the test object and details consisting of holes of increasing depth. Two digital systems were employed to predict PCs according to the two different approaches. One approach defined exposures and exposure differences from dose-response functions, including secondary and scattered radiation. The other defined exposure and exposure differences as calculated transmitted radiation flux from the primary beam behind the test object, excluding secondary and scattered radiation. Integrals of the PCs and of the minimum perceptible gray-level differences as functions of background gray levels were calculated. The validity of the different types of PCs was analyzed. Another test object was used to predict observer performance for the two systems. Results: The integrals of PCs obtained according to the above first-mentioned approach and integrals of gray-level differences as functions of background gray level were equal. The same integrals using the second approach were different. The second approach, however, successfully predicted observer performance for the two systems. Conclusions: Only the first-mentioned approach gives PCs that are true representations of psychophysical properties. The second approach may, however, be employed to predict observer performance when different radiographic systems are employed.

AB - Objectives: To construct and analyze perceptibility curves (PCs) according to two different approaches. Material and methods: A test object was used to determine the exposures and exposure differences between the total thickness of the test object and details consisting of holes of increasing depth. Two digital systems were employed to predict PCs according to the two different approaches. One approach defined exposures and exposure differences from dose-response functions, including secondary and scattered radiation. The other defined exposure and exposure differences as calculated transmitted radiation flux from the primary beam behind the test object, excluding secondary and scattered radiation. Integrals of the PCs and of the minimum perceptible gray-level differences as functions of background gray levels were calculated. The validity of the different types of PCs was analyzed. Another test object was used to predict observer performance for the two systems. Results: The integrals of PCs obtained according to the above first-mentioned approach and integrals of gray-level differences as functions of background gray level were equal. The same integrals using the second approach were different. The second approach, however, successfully predicted observer performance for the two systems. Conclusions: Only the first-mentioned approach gives PCs that are true representations of psychophysical properties. The second approach may, however, be employed to predict observer performance when different radiographic systems are employed.

KW - Digital Radiography, Dental

KW - Perception

KW - Radiography, Dental

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042531925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0042531925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF02493290

DO - 10.1007/BF02493290

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 38

EP - 48

JO - Oral Radiology

JF - Oral Radiology

SN - 0911-6028

IS - 1

ER -