• 1
    Carrino JA. Digital Image Quality: A clinical perspective. Quality Assurance and Quality Control in the Digital Imaging Department. Great Falls, VA: Society For Computer Applications In Radiology (SCAR), 2002:19.
  • 2
    Samei E. New Developments in Display Quality Control. Quality Assurance and Quality Control in the Digital Imaging Department. Great Falls, VA: Society For Computer Applications In Radiology (SCAR), 2002:7182.
  • 3
    Thompson DP, Koller CJ, Eatough JP. Practical assessment of the display performance of radiology workstations. Br J Radiol 2007;80:256260.
  • 4
    Leachtenauer JC. Electronic Image Display Equipment Selection and Operation. Washington: SPIE Press – International Society for Optical Engineering, 2004.
  • 5
    Sorantin E. Soft-copy display and reading: what the radiologist should know in the digital era. Pediatr Radiol 2008;38:12761284.
  • 6
    RSNA. Digital imaging illuminates question of ideal room lighting. RSNA News: Radiological Society of North America, 2007:1314.
  • 7
    Krupinski EA, Williams MB, Andriole K, et al. Digital radiography image quality: image processing and display. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:389400.
  • 8
    Badano A. AAPM/RSNA tutorial on equipment selection: PACS equipment overview: display systems. Radiographics 2004;24:879889.
  • 9
    Hellen-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A. Digital radiography in general dental practice: a field study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2007;36:249255.
  • 10
    Andriole KP. Display monitors for digital medical imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2005;2:543546.
  • 11
    AAPM. Assessment of Display Performance for Medical Imaging Systems. 2005 edition. AAPM Task Group 18, 2005:1145.
  • 12
    Samei E, Badano A, Chakraborty D, et al. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 2005;32:12051225.
  • 13
    Jervis SE, Brettle DS. A practical approach to soft-copy display consistency for PC-based review workstations. Br J Radiol 2003;76:648652.
  • 14
    Wade C, Brennan PC. Assessment of monitor conditions for the display of radiological diagnostic images and ambient lighting. Br J Radiol 2004;77:465471.
  • 15
    Crespi A, Bonsignore F, Paruccini N, Macchi I. Grayscale calibration and quality assurance of diagnostic monitors in a PACS system. Radiol Med 2006;111:863875.
  • 16
    Buls N, Shabana W, Verbeek P, Pevenage P, De Mey J. Influence of display quality on radiologists’ performance in the detection of lung nodules on radiographs. Br J Radiol 2007;80:738743.
  • 17
    SMPTE. SMPTE RP 133-1991: Specification for Medical and Diagnostic Imaging Test Pattern for Television Monitors and Hard-Copy Recording Cameras. In: SMPTE, 1991.
  • 18
    NEMA. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Standard Display Function. National Electrical Manufacturers Association standards and guidelines publications, 2007.
  • 19
    Crespi A, Bonsignore F, Paruccini N, De Ponti E, Macchi I. Acceptance tests of diagnostic displays in a PACS system according to AAPM TG18. Phys Med 2006;22:1724.
  • 20
    Aldrich JE, Rutledge JD. Assessment of PACS display systems. J Digit Imaging 2005;18:287295.
  • 21
    Ly CK. Softcopy display quality assurance program at Texas Children’s Hospital. J Digit Imaging 2002;15(Suppl 1):3340.
  • 22
    DIN. DIN V 6868-57 Image Quality Assurance in X-ray Diagnostics – Part 57 – Acceptance Testing for Image Display Devices. 20012002.
  • 23
    Krupinski EA, Kallergi M. Choosing a radiology workstation: technical and clinical considerations. Radiology 2007;242:671682.
  • 24
    Wang J, Compton K, Peng Q. Proposal of a quality-index or metric for soft copy display systems: contrast sensitivity study. J Digit Imaging 2003;16:185202.
  • 25
    Hellen-Halme K, Hellen-Halme B, Wenzel A. The effect of aging on luminance of standard liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112:237242.
  • 26
    Barten PGJ. Physical model for the contrast sensitivity of the human eye. Proceedings of SPIE 1992:1666.
  • 27
    Wang J, Langer S. A brief review of human perception factors in digital displays for picture archiving and communications systems. J Digit Imaging 1997;10:158168.
  • 28
    Sim L, Manthey K, Esdaile P, Benson M. Comparison of computer display monitors for computed radiography diagnostic application in a radiology PACS. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2004;27:148150.
  • 29
    Samei E. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: technological and psychophysical considerations for digital mammographic displays. Radiographics 2005;25:491501.
  • 30
    Krupinski EA. Medical grade vs off-the-shelf color displays: influence on observer performance and visual search. J Digit Imaging 2009;22:363368.
  • 31
    Krupinski EA, Roehrig H, Fan J, Yoneda T. Monochrome versus color softcopy displays for teleradiology: observer performance and visual search efficiency. Telemed J E Health 2007;13:675681.
  • 32
    Sim L, Manthey K, Stuckey S. Comparison of performance of computer display monitors for radiological diagnosis: ‘diagnostic’ high brightness monochrome LCD, 3MP vs ‘clinical review’ colour LCD, 2MP. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 2007;30:101104.
  • 33
    Cederberg RA, Frederiksen NL, Benson BW, Shulman JD. Influence of the digital image display monitor on observer performance. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:203207.
  • 34
    Kang BC, Farman AG, Scarfe WC, Goldsmith LJ. Observer differentiation of proximal enamel mechanical defects versus natural proximal dental caries with computed dental radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82:459465.
  • 35
    Ludlow JB, Abreu M Jr. Performance of film, desktop monitor and laptop displays in caries detection. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1999;28:2630.
  • 36
    Chawla AS, Samei E. Ambient illumination revisited: a new adaptation-based approach for optimizing medical imaging reading environments. Med Phys 2007;34:8190.
  • 37
    Hellen-Halme K, Nilsson M, Petersson A. Effect of monitors on approximal caries detection in digital radiographs–standard versus precalibrated DICOM Part 14 displays: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:716720.
  • 38
    Isidor S, Faaborg-Andersen M, Hintze H, et al. Effect of monitor display on detection of approximal caries lesions in digital radiographs. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009;38:537541.