A model for studying the detectability of X-ray images using the representation of images in the primary visual cortex (2312.17368v1)
Abstract: It is well known that the visual information represented in the simple cells of the primary visual cortex V1 is spatially localized, orientation-sensitive and bandpass-filtered. In addition, the visual information represented is subsampled. On the other hand, the methods used to assess image quality of x-ray systems performing detectability tasks are usually carried out in the spatial or image domain. This study examines the behavior of two observers, IBO and NPW, employed in the evaluation of imaging systems, in a domain that simulates the representation of visual information in V1 to gain a better understanding of the degree of optimization in human observer detectability tasks. The comparison of the two observers is conducted on images of a contrast-detail phantom and is performed in both the spatial and the wavelet domains. Furthermore, the study examines the covariance matrices of the noise. The strong covariance exhibited in the noise among neighboring pixels in the spatial domain results in covariance matrices with relatively high values outside the main diagonal, leading to significant differences between the NPW and IBO observers. In the transformed domain, the band-pass decimated filters have substantially reduced the covariance between neighboring pixels, resulting in the convergence of the detectability indices of both observers. The vast amount of information captured by the retina necessitates an optimization of informational nature. This strategy eliminates low-frequency correlations in the image, after bandpass filtering carried out by simple cells in V1. This loss of information could contribute to the suboptimal performance of the human observer. Interestingly, in V1 the differences between IBO and NPW observers are very small. Therefore, either NPW does not accurately represent the human observer in V1, or the human observer is close to optimal in this domain.
- J. Cudeiro and A. M. Sillito, Looking back: corticothalamic feedback and early visual processing, Trends in Neurosciences 29, 298–306 (2006).
- Anatomy and Physiology of Macaque Visual Cortical Areas V1, V2, and V5/MT: Bases for Biologically Realistic Models, Cerebral Cortex 30, 3483–3517 (2020).
- Early exploration of the visual cortex, Neuron 20, 401–412 (1998).
- A survey of architecture and function of the primary visual cortex (V1), Eurasip Journal on Advances in Signal Processing (2007).
- H. B. Barlow, Possible Principles Underlying the Transformations of Sensory Messages, in Sensory Communication, pages 216–234, The MIT Press, 2012.
- Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: A strategy employed by V1?, Vision Research 37, 3311–3325 (1997).
- Natural image statistics and neural representation., Annual review of neuroscience 24, 1193–216 (2001).
- Quantization: Is It Possible to Improve Classification?, Data Compression Conference Proceedings 2023-March, 318–327 (2023).
- Brain and visual perception: the story of a 25-year collaboration, Oxford University Press, 2004.
- J. Alonso and Y. Chen, Receptive field, Scholarpedia 4, 5393 (2009), revision #136681.
- T. Lindeberg, Normative theory of visual receptive fields, Heliyon 7, e05897 (2021).
- H. B. Barlow, Trigger Features, Adaptation and Economy of Impulses, in Information Processing in The Nervous System, pages 209–230, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1969.
- Survey of spiking in the mouse visual system reveals functional hierarchy, Nature 592, 86–92 (2021).
- Selectivity, hyperselectivity, and the tuning of V1 neurons, Journal of Vision 17, 1–22 (2017).
- Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images., 1996.
- R. E. Alvarez, Signal to noise ratio of energy selective x-ray photon counting systems with pileup, Medical Physics 41, 1–13 (2014).
- Practical evaluation of image quality in computed radiographic (CR) imaging systems, in Medical Imaging, 2010.
- ICRU, Icru Report 54: Medical Imagining-The Assessment of Image Quality, Technical report, 1995.
- A. González‐López, Detectability assessment of an x‐ray imaging system using the nodes in a wavelet packet decomposition of a star–bar object, Medical Physics 48, 3022–3030 (2021).
- K. Fukunaga, Introduction to Statistical Pattern Recognition, Elsevier, 2 edition, 1990.
- A comparison of human and model observers in multislice LROC studies, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 24, 160–169 (2005).
- S. Richard and J. H. Siewerdsen, Comparison of model and human observer performance for detection and discrimination tasks using dual-energy x-ray images, Medical Physics 35, 5043–5053 (2008).
- J. Solomon and E. Samei, What observer models best reflect low-contrast detectability in CT?, in Medical Imaging 2015: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment, edited by C. R. Mello-Thoms and M. A. Kupinski, volume 9416, pages 102 – 109, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 2015.
- Can the non-pre-whitening model observer, including aspects of the human visual system, predict human observer performance in mammography?, Physica Medica 32, 1559–1569 (2016).
- IEC, Medical electrical equipment-Characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices-Part 1-1: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency-Detectors used in radiographic imaging, 2015.
- American Association of Physicists in Medicine, An Exposure Indicator for Digital Radiography, Number 116, 2009.
- A. González‐López, Improving input contrast estimation to an x-ray imaging system, Physics in Medicine & Biology (2023).
- S. G. Mallat, A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing: The Sparse way, Academic Press, 3 edition, 2009.
- The dual-tree complex wavelet transform, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 22, 123–151 (2005).
- Potential of Overcomplete Wavelet Frame Expansion for Facilitating Electroencephalogram Information Mining, Frontiers in Neuroscience 15 (2022).