PACS pp 191-235 | Cite as


  • Steven C. Horii


The practice of medicine involves viewing a vast amount of visual information. Whether it be seeing a patient’s overall appearance at the start of a physical examination or interpreting a computed tomographic study of the abdomen, physicians and their co-workers rely on their visual sense to gather the data they need to make a diagnosis or establish an appropriate treatment. Increasingly, the images used to support these tasks are in digital form. With rare exception, the digital image data itself (which is, after all, just an array of numbers) is not reviewed because the analog nature of human visual perception requires modulations of light intensity and wavelength. That is, we need variations in brightness and color to see things.


Window Width Radiology Information System Observer Performance Reading Room Digital Revolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alter, AJ et al. The influence of ambient and view box light upon visual detection of low contrast targets in a radiograph. Invest Radiol 17: 402, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American College of Radiology: ACR Standard for Teleradiology. Reston, American College of Radiology, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. Arenson, RL et al. The digital imaging workstation. Radiology 176: 303–315, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Asher, RW, Martin, H. Cathode ray devices. In: Luxenberg, HR, Kuehn, RL (eds), Display Systems Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968: 237–276.Google Scholar
  5. Augarten, S. Bit by bit: An illustrated history of computers. New York, 1984; Ticknor and Fields: 263–281.Google Scholar
  6. Baxter, B, Ravindra, H, Norman, RA. Changes in lesion detectability caused by light adaptation in retinal photoreceptors. Invest Radiol 17: 394, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beard, D et al. A prototype single-screen PACs console development using human-computer interaction techniques. Proc SPIE 767: 646–653, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Beard, DV et al. Evolved design of a radiology workstation using time-motion analysis and the keystroke model. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 1091: 121–131, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. Beard, DV. Designing a radiology workstation: A focus on navigation during the interpretation task. J Digit Imaging 3 (3): 152–163, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beard, DV et al. Interpretation of CT studies: Single-screen workstation versus film alternator. Radiology 187 (2): 565–9, 1993.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Beard, DV et al. Eye movement during computed tomography interpretation: Eyetracker results and image display-time implications. J Digit Imaging 7 (4): 189–192, 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bell, CG. Toward a history of (personal) workstations. In: Goldberg, A (ed), A History of Personal Workstations, 4–36, ACM Press, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. Chang, PJ, Hoffman, E. Multimodality workstation featuring multiband cine mode and realtime distributed interactive consultation. RSNA 1993; InfoRAD Exhibit 9507WS.Google Scholar
  14. DeJesus, EX. The searchable kingdom. Byte 22(6):92NA1–92NAl2, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. Derbyshire, K. Beyond AMLCDs: Field emission displays? Electronics Design, October, 1994: 56–66.Google Scholar
  16. Duerinckx, AJ (ed). Proc. SPIE v 318: Picture archiving and communications systems for medical applications, Parts I and II. SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. Dwyer III, SJ et al. Salient characteristics of a distributed diagnostic imaging management system for a radiology department. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 318:194–204, 1982. el-Saden, SM, HademenosGoogle Scholar
  18. GJ, Zhu, W. Assessment of intraaxial and extraaxial brain lesions with digitized computed tomographi images versus film: ROC analysis. Academic Radiology 4 (2): 90–95, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engelbart, D. The Augmented Knowledge Workshop. In: Goldberg, A (ed), A History of Personal Workstations, 187–232, ACM Press, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. Feingold, E, Seshadri, SB, Arenson, RL. Folder management on a multimodality PACS display station. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 1446: 211–216, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. Feingold, ER et al. Web-based radiology applications for clinicians and radiologists. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 3035; 60–71, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. Fujino, T. Simulation and computer aided surgery. Chichester; John Wiley and Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. Greenes, RA. Toward more effective radiologie workstation consultation: Design of a desktop workstation to aid in the selection and interpretation of diagnostic procedures. Proceedings of the Eighth Conference of Computer Applications in Radiology; American College of Radiology 1984: 554–561.Google Scholar
  24. Greenes, RA, Bauman, RA. The era of health care reform and the information superhighway. Radiol Clin of North Amer 34 (3): 463–468, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. Goldberg, A (ed). A History of Personal Workstations, ACM Press, New York, 1988. Gray, HT, Sune CT, Jones, GW. Silicon field emitter arrays for cathodoluminescent flat-panel displays. J Soc for Info Display 1 (2): 143–146, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. Hafner, K, Lyon, M. Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the Internet. New York, Simon and Schuster: 1996.Google Scholar
  27. Haskin, ME et al. Data versus information: Which should we exchange? SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 536: 37–42, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. Hohman, SA et al. Radiologists’ requirements for primary diagnosis workstations: Preliminary results of task-based design surveys. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 2165: 2–7, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. Honeyman, JC et al. Functional requirements for diagnostic workstations. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 1899: 103–109, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. Horii, SC et al. Environmental designs for reading from imaging workstations: Ergonomic and architectural features. J Dig Imaging 2 (3): 156–162, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Horii, SC. Electronic imaging workstations: Ergonomic issues and the user interface. Radio-Graphics 12: 773–787, 1992.Google Scholar
  32. Horii, SC et al. Overlapped image display method: A technique for comparing medical images on a workstation. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 2164: 456–466, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. Horii, SC et al. PACS workstation usage differences between radiologists and MICU physicians. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 2711: 266–271, 1996.Google Scholar
  34. Huo, Z et al. Automated computerized classification of malignant and benign masses on digitized mammograms. Academic Radiology 5 (3): 155–168, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jost, RG et al. An electronic multiviewer. Proceedings of the Eighth Conference of Computer Applications in Radiology; American College of Radiology 1984: 304–311.Google Scholar
  36. Kano, A et al. Digital image subtraction of temporally sequential chest images for detection of interval change. Med Phys 21 (3): 453–461, 1994.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krupinski, EA, Lund, PJ. Comparison of film vs. monitor viewing of CR films using eye-position recording. Proc SCAR `96; 1996: 269–274.Google Scholar
  38. Kundel, HL. How much spatial resolution is enough? A meta-analysis of observer performance studies comparing plain films and digital hard copy. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 1899: 86–89, 1993.Google Scholar
  39. Lampson, BW. Personal distributed computing: The Alto and Ethernet software. In: Goldberg, A (ed), A History of Personal Workstations, 293–335, ACM Press, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  40. Larsen, GN. Interactive image processing for computerized tomography (Ph.D. Thesis). Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, University of Missouri at Columbia. August, 1976.Google Scholar
  41. Lawrence, A. Acoustic design. In: Ruck, NC (ed), Building Design and Human Performance. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989: 117.Google Scholar
  42. Lemke, HU et al. Applications of picture processing, image analysis, and computer graphics techniques to cranial CT scans. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Computer Applications in Radiology and Computer/Aided Analysis of Radiological Images; 341–354. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  43. Leung, KT et al. Image navigation for PACS workstations. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 2435: 43–49, 1995.Google Scholar
  44. Li, X et al. World Wide Web telemedicine system. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 2711: 427–439, 1995.Google Scholar
  45. Licklider, JCR. Some reflections on early history. In: Goldberg, A (ed), A History of Personal Workstations, 117–130, ACM Press, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  46. Maguire Jr, GQ et al. Image processing requirements in hospitals and an integrated systems approach. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 318: 206–213, 1982.Google Scholar
  47. Mann, S. Cyborg seeks community. Technology Review 102 (3): 36–42, 1999.Google Scholar
  48. Mascarini, Ch et al. In-house access to PACS images and related data through World Wide Web. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 2711: 531–537, 1995.Google Scholar
  49. MDIS Technical Development Team: MDIS Medical Diagnostic Imaging Support System Acquisition Document. Huntsville, US Army Engineer Division; 1991: C-23—C-57.Google Scholar
  50. Motamedi, ME, Wu, MC, Pister, KSJ. Micro-opto-electro-mechanical devices and on-chip optical processing. Optical Engineering 36 (5): 1282–1297, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perry, J, Prior, F. Purchasing a PACS: An RFP toolkit. In: Siegel, EL and Kolodner, RM (eds). Filmless Radiology. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1999: 33–84.Google Scholar
  52. Ravindra, H, Norman, RA, Baxter, B. The effect of extraneous light on lesion detectability: A demonstration. Invest Radiol 18: 105, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Robb, RA. Volume visualization and virtual reality in medicine and biology. In: Lemke, HU, Vannier, MW, Inamura, K, and Farman, AG (eds), Proceedings of CAR `98: Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. Amsterdam, 1998; Elsevier: 131–142.Google Scholar
  54. Rogers, DC, Johnston, RE. Effect of ambient light on electronically displayed medical images as measured by luminance-discrimination thresholds. J Opt Soc Am A4: 976, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ross, DT. A personal view of the personal work station. In: Goldberg, A (ed), A History of Personal Workstations, 54–111, ACM Press, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  56. Rossman, K. Image quality. Radiol Clin of North Amer 7 (3): 419–433, 1969.Google Scholar
  57. Rostenberg, B. The architecture of imaging. Chicago; American Hospital Publishing: 1995.Google Scholar
  58. Sampsell, JB. SID International Symposium Digest of Technical Papers. An overview of the digital micromirror device and its application to projection displays. 24: 1012, 1993.Google Scholar
  59. Say, DL et al. Monochrome and color image-display devices. In: Benson, KB (ed), Television Engineering Handbook. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1986: 12. 1–12. 53.Google Scholar
  60. Sezan, MI, Yip, KL, Daly, SJ. An investigation of the effects of uniform perceptual quantization in the context of digital radiography. SPIE/Physics of Medical Imaging 767: 622–630, 1987.Google Scholar
  61. Scott Jr et al. Interpretation of Emergency Department radiographs by radiologists and emergency medicine physicians: Teleradiology workstation versus radiograph readings. Radiology 195:223–229, 1995.Google Scholar
  62. Sherr, S. Electronic Displays, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1993: Chapter 3: 201–340.Google Scholar
  63. Shyankay, J. Diamond films used in flat panel displays. RandD Magazine, April 1995 44. Slasky, BS et al. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of chest image interpretation withconventional, laser printed, and high-resolution workstation images. Radiology 174: 775–780, 1990.Google Scholar
  64. Spindt, CA et al. Physical properties of thin-film field emission cathodes with molybdenum cones. J Appl Physics 47 (12): 5248–5251, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Taira, RK et al. Design of a graphical user interface for an intelligent multimedia informationsystem for radiology research. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 2435: 11–23, 1995.Google Scholar
  66. Taylor, JH. Vision. In: Parker, JF, West, VR (eds), Bioastronautics Data Book, 2nd Edition. Washington, DC, NASA:611–665, 1973.Google Scholar
  67. Haar Romeny, BM et al. The Dutch PACS project: Philosophy, design of a digital reading room and first observations in the Utrecht University Hospital in the Netherlands. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 767: 787–792, 1987.Google Scholar
  68. Thacker, CP. Personal distributed computing: The Alto and Ethernet hardware. In: Goldberg, A (ed), A History of Personal Workstations, 267–289, ACM Press, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  69. van der Voorde, F et al. Development of a physician friendly digital image display console. SPIE Physics of Medical Imaging 626: 541–548, 1986.Google Scholar
  70. Vannier, MW, Marsh, JL. Three-dimensional imaging, surgical planning, and image-guided therapy. Radiol Clin of North Amer 34 (3): 545–563, 1996.Google Scholar
  71. Vining, DJ. Virtual endoscopy: Is it reality? Radiology 200: 30–31, 1996.Google Scholar
  72. Xu, XW et al. Development of an improved CAD scheme for automated detection of lung nodules in digital chest images. Med Phys 24 (9): 395–403, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven C. Horii

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations