Edge Enhancement Optimization in Flexible Endoscopic Images to the Perception of Ear, Nose and Throat Professionals.
edge enhancement
flexible endoscopes
image quality
noise
sharpening
Journal
The Laryngoscope
ISSN: 1531-4995
Titre abrégé: Laryngoscope
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8607378
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Aug 2023
17 Aug 2023
Historique:
revised:
28
07
2023
received:
21
04
2023
accepted:
03
08
2023
medline:
17
8
2023
pubmed:
17
8
2023
entrez:
17
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Digital endoscopes are connected to a video processor that applies various operations to process the image. One of those operations is edge enhancement that sharpens the image. The purpose of this study was to (1) quantify the level of edge enhancement, (2) measure the effect on sharpness and image noise, and (3) study the influence of edge enhancement on image quality perceived by ENT professionals. Three digital flexible endoscopic systems were included. The level of edge enhancement and the influence on sharpness and noise were measured in vitro, while systematically varying the levels of edge enhancement. In vivo images were captured at identical levels of one healthy larynx. Each series of in vivo images was presented to 39 ENT professionals according to a forced pairwise comparison test, to select the image with the best image quality for diagnostic purposes. The numbers of votes were converted to a psychometric scale of just noticeable differences (JND) according to the Thurstone V model. The maximum level of edge enhancement varied per endoscopic system and ranged from 0.8 to 1.2. Edge enhancement increased sharpness and noise. Images with edge enhancement were unanimously preferred to images without edge enhancement. The quality difference with respect to zero edge enhancement reaches an optimum at levels between 0.7 and 0.9. Edge enhancement has a major impact on sharpness, noise, and the resulting perceived image quality. We conclude that ENT professionals benefit from this video processing and should verify if their equipment is optimally configured. N/A Laryngoscope, 2023.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. The Laryngoscope published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Références
Paul BC, Chen S, Sridharan S, Fang Y, Amin MR, Branski RC. Diagnostic accuracy of history, laryngoscopy, and stroboscopy. Laryngoscope. 2012;123(1):215-219.
Eller R, Ginsburg M, Lurie D, Heman-Ackah Y, Lyons K, Sataloff R. Flexible laryngoscopy: a comparison of fiber optic and distal chip technologies. Part 1: vocal fold masses. J Voice. 2008;22(6):746-750.
Eller R, Ginsburg M, Lurie D, Heman-Ackah Y, Lyons K, Sataloff R. Flexible laryngoscopy: a comparison of fiber optic and distal chip technologies-part 2: laryngopharyngeal reflux. J Voice. 2009;23(3):389-395.
Plaat BEC, van der Laan BFAM, Wedman J, Halmos GB, Dikkers FG. Distal chip versus fiberoptic laryngoscopy using endoscopic sheats: diagnostic accuracy and image quality. Laryngology. 2014;8(271):2227-2232.
Scholman C, Westra JM, Zwakenberg MA, et al. Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal an laryngeal lesions: a multi-observer paired analysis of videos. Clin Otolaryngol. 2020;45(1):119-125.
Scholman C, Westra JM, Zwakenberg MA, et al. High-definition videolaryngoscopy is superior to fiberoptic laryngoscopy: a 111 multi-observer study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278(6):1927-1932.
Geleijnse G, Veder LL, Hakkesteegt MM, Metselaar RM. The objective measurement and subjective perception of flexible ENT endoscopes’ image quality. J Image Sci Technol. 2022;66(3):1-6.
Kawaida M, Fukuda H, Kohno N. Observations of laryngeal lesions with a rhinolarynx electronic videoendoscope system and digital image processing. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1998;107(10 Pt 1):855-859.
Kawaida M, Fukuda H, Kohno N. Digital image processing of laryngeal lesions by electronic videoendoscopy. Laryngoscope. 2002;112(3):559-564.
Koren N. The Imatest program: comparing cameras with different amounts of sharpening. Proc. SPIE 6069, Digital Photography II, 60690L. San Jose, California, United States; 2006.
Trentacoste M, Mantiuk R, Heidrich W, Dufrot F. Unsharp masking, countershading and halos: enhancements or artifacts? Comput Graph Forum. 2012;31(2):555-564.
Rajunor E. Screening for Colorectal Cancer with Colonoscopy. Zagreb: IntechOpen; 2015.
Geleijnse G, Rieger B. Influence of edge enhancement applied in endoscopic systems on sharpness and noise. J Biomed Opt. 2022;27(10):1-15.
Kramer RH, Davenport CM. Lateral inhibition in the vertebrate retina: the case of the missing neurotransmitter. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(12):e1002322.
Neycenssac F. Contrast enhancement using the Laplacian-of-a-gaussian filter. CVGIP Graph Models Image Process. 1993;55(6):447-463.
Geleijnse G, Hakkesteegt MM, de Groot JG, Metselaar RM. Measuring image quality of ENT Chip-on-tip endoscopes. J Imag Sci Technol. 2021;65(2):1-7.
Kelly SC, Keelan BW. ISO 12232 revision: determination of chrominance noise weights for noise-based ISO calculation. Proc. SPIE 5668, Image Quality and System Performance II; (2005). San Jose, California, United States; 2005.
Mantiuk RK, Tomaszewska A, Mantiuk R. Comparison of four subjective methods for image quality assessment. Comput Graph Forum. 2012;31(8):2478-2491.
Tsukida K, Gupta MR. How to Analyze Paired Comparison Data. Washington: University of Washington, Department of Electrical Engineering; 2011.
Pérez-Ortiz M, Mantiuk RK. A Practical Guide and Software for Analysing. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory; 2017.
Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol Rev. 1927;34(4):273-286.