1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Optimization of detector pixel size for stent visualization in x-ray fluoroscopy
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.2169907
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/3/10.1118/1.2169907
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/3/10.1118/1.2169907
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

The MTF and normalized aliased NPS for indirect detectors with pixel sizes of 50, 100, 200, and . They were shown up to the Nyquist frequency for each pixel size.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

A sample display frame for the 4-AFC stent deployment experiment. Each noisy panel had a realistic simulated stent. One of four stents was partially deployed on one side. The central noiseless panel contains a partially deployed, high-contrast stent as a template. The stent was length, diameter, and 75% deployment. The subject correctly, or incorrectly, chooses the panel containing the partially deployed stent. In the experiment, we adapted the contrast of the stent. In this figure, the stent contrast was enhanced and the noise was reduced for the clarity.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The effect of pixel size in the stent detection experiment with the idealized direct and indirect detectors. Contrast sensitivities at the exposure of are shown in (A). Contrast sensitivities at the exposure of are shown in (B).

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

The effect of pixel size in the stent deployment experiment with the idealized direct and indirect detectors. Contrast sensitivities at are shown in (A). Contrast sensitivities at the exposure of are shown in (B).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

CHO model predictions were compared to the measured contrast sensitivity data obtained from human subjects in the stent detection experiment as a function of the detector pixel size and x-ray exposure. The human data were compared to the predictions from the CHO model for the idealized direct (A) and the idealized indirect detectors (B) at the exposures of 5 and .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

CHO model predictions for the detection of a defect stent were compared to the measured contrast sensitivity data obtained from human subjects in the stent deployment experiment as a function of the detector pixel size and x-ray exposure. The human data were compared to the predictions from the CHO model for the idealized direct (A) and the idealized indirect detectors (B) at the exposures of 5 and .

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

The measured contrast sensitivity data from stent detection and deployment experiments on the idealized direct detector at the exposure of were shown. In the figure, the measured contrast sensitivity values were 42.9% to 74.7% higher with the stent detection experiment, as compared to the stent deployment experiment. Noted that the stent deployment experiment has a steeper drop of detection performance with larger pixels.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Model predictions from the computational observer models were compared to the measured contrast sensitivity data obtained from human subject in the stent detection experiment on the idealized direct detector as a function of the detector pixel size and x-ray exposure. The human data were compared to predictions from the ideal observer model (A) and the nonprewhiting with the eye filter model (B) at the exposures of 5 and . For each subject and model, the measured contrast sensitivities were normalized by values obtained for an idealized direct detector at the exposure of and size.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

CHO model predictions as a function of the electronic noise variance on (A) the idealized direct detector and (B) idealized indirect detector with different detector pixel sizes. Model predictions are normalized by the idealized director detector model SNR for the size and zero electronic noise. The x-ray exposure is and the fill factor is 100%. The electronic noise has a larger effect on smaller detector pixels.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

CHO model predictions as a function of the fill factor percentage on the idealized direct detector with different detector pixel sizes. Model predictions are normalized by the idealized director detector model SNR for the size and 100% fill factor. The x-ray exposure is and the electronic noise is zero. The fill factor will shift the optimal detector pixel size to a larger one.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/3/10.1118/1.2169907
2006-02-17
2014-04-25
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Optimization of detector pixel size for stent visualization in x-ray fluoroscopy
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/33/3/10.1118/1.2169907
10.1118/1.2169907
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM