Identification of simulated microcalcifications in white noise and mammographic backgrounds

This work investigates human performance in discriminating between differently shaped simulated microcalcifications embedded in white noise or mammographic backgrounds. Human performance was determined through two alternative forced‐choice (2‐AFC) experiments. The signals used were computer‐generated simple shapes that were designed such that they had equal signal energy. This assured equal detectability. For experiments involving mammographic backgrounds, signals were blurred to account for the imaging system modulation transfer function (MTF). White noise backgrounds were computer generated; anatomic background patches were extracted from normal mammograms. We compared human performance levels as a function of signal energy in the expected difference template. In the discrimination task, the expected difference template is the difference between the two signals shown. In white noise backgrounds, human performance in the discrimination task was degraded compared to the detection task. In mammographic backgrounds, human performance in the discrimination task exceeded that of the detection task. This indicates that human observers do not follow the optimum decision strategy of correlating the expected signal template with the image. Human observer performance was qualitatively reproduced by non‐prewhitening with eye filter (NPWE) model observer calculations, in which spatial uncertainty was explicitly included by shifting the locations of the expected difference templates. The results indicate that human strategy in the discrimination task may be to match individual signal templates with the image individually, rather than to perform template matching between the expected difference template and the image.