Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability

Open access
Abbey, Craig K., Barrett, Harrison H.·2001·Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Abstract

We consider detection of a nodule signal profile in noisy images meant to roughly simulate the statistical properties of tomographic image reconstructions in nuclear medicine. The images have two sources of variability arising from quantum noise from the imaging process and anatomical variability in the ensemble of objects being imaged. Both of these sources of variability are simulated by a stationary Gaussian random process. Sample images from this process are generated by filtering white-noise images. Human-observer performance in several signal-known-exactly detection tasks is evaluated through psychophysical studies by using the two-alternative forced-choice method. The tasks considered investigate parameters of the images that influence both the signal profile and pixel-to-pixel correlations in the images. The effect of low-pass filtering is investigated as an approximation to regularization implemented by image-reconstruction algorithms. The relative magnitudes of the quantum and the anatomical variability are investigated as an approximation to the effects of exposure time. Finally, we study the effect of the anatomical correlations in the form of an anatomical slope as an approximation to the effects of different tissue types. Human-observer performance is compared with the performance of a number of model observers computed directly from the ensemble statistics of the images used in the experiments for the purpose of finding predictive models. The model observers investigated include a number of nonprewhitening observers, the Hotelling observer (which is equivalent to the ideal observer for these studies), and six implementations of channelized-Hotelling observers. The human observers demonstrate large effects across the experimental parameters investigated. In the regularization study, performance exhibits a mild peak at intermediate levels of regularization before degrading at higher levels. The exposure-time study shows that human observers are able to detect ever more subtle lesions at increased exposure times. The anatomical slope study shows that human-observer performance degrades as anatomical variability extends into higher spatial frequencies. Of the observers tested, the channelized-Hotelling observers best capture the features of the human data.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1364/josaa.18.000473

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Abbey, C. K., & Barrett, H. H.
Venue
Journal of the Optical Society of America A
Published
2001-03-01
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
473
ISSN
  • 1084-7529 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-8532
OpenAlex
W2099631097
Cited by
324
References
29
FWCI
8.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1364/josaa.18.000473
The paper
Abbey, C. K., & Barrett, H. H. (2001). Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. Journal of the Optical Society of America A. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.18.000473

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.