JSEA  Vol.3 No.10 , October 2010
Investigation of Noise-Resolution Tradeoff for Digital Radiographic Imaging: A Simulation Study
Abstract: In digital radiographic systems, a tradeoff exists between image resolution (or blur) and noise characteristics. An imaging system may only be superior in one image quality characteristic while being inferior to another in the other characteristic. In this work, a computer simulation model is presented that is to use mutual-information (MI) metric to examine tradeoff behavior between resolution and noise. MI is used to express the amount of information that an output image contains about an input object. The basic idea is that when the amount of the uncertainty associated with an object before and after imaging is reduced, the difference of the uncertainty is equal to the value of MI. The more the MI value provides, the better the image quality is. The simulation model calculated MI as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and that of resolution for two image contrast levels. Our simulation results demonstrated that MI associated with overall image quality is much more sensitive to noise compared to blur, although tradeoff relationship between noise and blur exists. However, we found that overall image quality is primarily determined by image blur at very low noise levels.
Cite this paper: nullE. Matsuyama, D. Tsai, Y. Lee and K. Kojima, "Investigation of Noise-Resolution Tradeoff for Digital Radiographic Imaging: A Simulation Study," Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 3 No. 10, 2010, pp. 926-932. doi: 10.4236/jsea.2010.310109.

[1]   H. Fujita, K. Doi and M. L. Giger, “Investigation of Basic Imaging Properties in Digital Radiography 6 MTFs of II-TV Digital Imaging Systems,” Medical Physics, Vol. 12, No. 6, 1985, pp. 713-720.

[2]   M. L. Giger, K. Doi and H. Fujita, “Investigation of Basic Imaging Properties in Digital Radiography 7 Noise Wiener Spectra of II-TV Digital Imaging Systems,” Medical Physics, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1986, pp. 131-138.

[3]   A. Maidment and M. Yaffe, “Analysis of Spatial-Fre- quency-Dependent DQE of Optically Coupled Digital Mammography Detectors,” Medical Physics, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1994, pp. 721-729.

[4]   E. Matsuyama, D. Y. Tsai, Y. Lee, M. Sekiya and K. Kojima, “Physical Characterization of Digital Radiological Images by Use of Transmitted Information Metric,” Pro- ceedings of 2008 SPIE Medical Imaging, Vol. 6913, 2008, pp. 69130V1-V8.

[5]   D. Y. Tsai, Y. Lee and E. Matsuyama, “Information En- tropy Measure for Evaluation of Image Quality,” Journal of Digital Imaging, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2008, pp. 338-347.

[6]   E. Matsuyama, D. Y. Tsai and Y. Lee, “Mutual Informa- tion-Based Evaluation of Image Quality with Its Prelimi- nary Application to Assessment of Medical Imaging Sys- tems,” Journal of Electronic Imaging, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2009, pp. 033011-1-11.

[7]   R. Nishikawa and S. Lee, “Preliminary Results on a Method for Producing Simulated Mammograms,” pre- sented at the AAPM 44th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2002.

[8]   A. Tingberg, C. Herrmann, J. Besjakov, A. Almen, P. Sund, D. Adliene, S. Mattsson, L. Mansson and W. Pan- zer, “What is Worse: Decreased Spatial Resolution or Increased Noise,” Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, Vol. 4686, 2002, pp. 338-346.

[9]   R. S. Saunders Jr. and E. Samei, “A Method for Modify- ing the Image Quality Parameters of Digital Radiographic Images,” Medical Physics, Vol. 30, No. 11, 2003, pp. 3006- 3017.

[10]   T. Fuchs and W. Kalender, “On the Correlation of Pixel Noise, Spatial Resolution and Dose in Computed Tomography,” Physica Medica, Vol. XIX, No. 2, 2003, pp. 153- 164.

[11]   B. Li, G. B. Avinash and J. Hsieh, “Resolution and Noise Trade-off Analysis for Volumetric CT,” Medical Physics, Vol. 34, No. 10, 2007, pp. 3732-3738.

[12]   A. R. Pineda and H. H. Barrett, “What Does DQE Say about Lesion Detectability in Digital Radiography,” Proceedings of 2001 SPIE Medical Imaging, Vol. 4320, 2001, pp. 561-569.

[13]   C. E. Shannon, “Mathematical Theory of Communica- tion,” Bell System Technology Journal, Vol. 27, 1948, pp. 379-423, pp. 623-656.

[14]   C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, “The Mathematical Theory of Communication,” The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1948.

[15]   D. Skerl, B. Likar and F. Pernus, “A Protocol for Evalua- tion of Similarity Measures for Rigid Registration,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Vol. 25, No. 6, 2006, pp. 779-791.

[16]   G. D. Tourassi, B. Harrawood, S. Singh and J. Y. Lo, “Information-Theoretic CAD System in Mammography: Entropy-Based Indexing for Computational Efficiency and Robust Performance,” Medical Physics, Vol. 34, No. 8, 2007, pp. 3193-3204.

[17]   J. P. W. Pluim, J. B. A. Maintz amd M. A. Viergever, “Mutual-Information-Based Registration of Medical Images: A Survey,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Vol. 22, No. 8, 2003, pp. 986-1004.

[18]   G. D. Tourassi, E. D. Frederick, M. K. Marley and C. E. Floyd Jr., “Application of the Mutual Information Criterion for Feature Selection in Computer-Aided Diagnosis,” Medical Physics, Vol. 28, No. 12, 2001, pp. 2394-2402.