UNASSIGNED: Currently, there is a paucity of guidelines relating to displays used for digital pathology making procurement decisions, and optimal display configuration, challenging.Experience suggests pathologists have personal preferences for brightness when using a conventional microscope which we hypothesized could be used as a predictor for display setup.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted an online survey across six NHS hospitals, totalling 108 practicing pathologists, to capture brightness adjustment habits on both microscopes and displays.A convenience subsample of respondents was then invited to take part in a practical task to determine microscope brightness and display luminance preferences in the normal working environment. A novel adaptation for a lightmeter was developed to directly measure the light output from the microscope eyepiece.
UNASSIGNED: The survey (response rate 59% n=64) indicates 81% of respondents adjust the brightness on their microscope. In comparison, only 11% report adjusting their digital display. Display adjustments were more likely to be for visual comfort and ambient light compensation rather than for tissue factors, common for microscope adjustments. Part of this discrepancy relates to lack of knowledge of how to adjust displays and lack of guidance on whether this is safe; But, 66% felt that the ability to adjust the light on the display was important.Twenty consultants took part in the practical brightness assessment. Light preferences on the microscope showed no correlation with display preferences, except where a pathologist has a markedly brighter microscope light preference. All of the preferences in this cohort were for a display luminance of <500 cd/m2, with 90% preferring 350 cd/m2 or less. There was no correlation between these preferences and the ambient lighting in the room.
UNASSIGNED: We conclude that microscope preferences can only be used to predict display luminance requirements where the microscope is being used at very high brightness levels. A display capable of a brightness of 500 cd/m2 should be suitable for almost all pathologists with 300 cd/m2 suitable for the majority. Although display luminance is not frequently changed by users, the ability to do so was felt to be important by the majority of respondents.Further work needs to be undertaken to establish the relationship between diagnostic performance, luminance preferences, and ambient lighting levels.

New type desktop head-up display (HUD) can reduce visual fatigue and protect vision through long viewing distance. In this study, participants evaluated visual performance, fatigue, and discomfort of desktop HUD under two contrast polarity (N = 36) and five display luminance levels (N = 21). A positive polarity advantage was found over negative in visual fatigue and discomfort (p < .05). Statistically significant effect of luminance was found on visual performance, fatigue, and discomfort (p < .05). The calculated optimum display luminance by the proposed inverted-U fitted model was 153 cd/m2 under 300 lx, higher than that of traditional desktop displays. It is speculated that higher luminance is required to offset the reduction in contrast sensitivity due to smaller target angular size, which caused by longer viewing distance. These findings suggest that positive polarity and 153 cd/m2 can be used to improve performance and avoid fatigue and discomfort when utilising desktop HUD under 300 lx.
A visual ergonomic study was conducted on new type desktop HUD. With visual performance, fatigue, and discomfort as optimisation goals, positive polarity and 153 cd/m2 was recommended under 300 lx. Compared with traditional desktop displays, higher luminance was required in desktop HUD under the same illumination.

OBJECTIVE: While the performance of displays used for the acquisition and primary interpretation of medical images has been well-characterized, notably absent are publications evaluating and discussing the performance of displays used in Interventional Radiology (IR) suites and Cardiac Catheterization (CC) laboratories. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the performance of these displays and to consider the challenges in implementation of display quality assurance practices in this environment.
METHODS: Ten large format displays used in IR and CC suites were evaluated. A visual inspection of available test patterns was performed followed by a quantitative evaluation of several performance characteristics including luminance ratio, luminance response function, and luminance uniformity. Additionally, the local ambient lighting conditions were evaluated.
RESULTS: Luminance ratios ranged from 243.0 to 1182.1 with a mean value of 500.1 ± 289.2. The maximum deviation between the luminance response function and the DICOM Grayscale Standard Display Function ranged from 11.2% to 38.3% with a mean value of 26.2% ± 10.9%. When evaluating luminance uniformity, the mean maximum luminance deviation was 13.2% ± 3.5%. The mean value of luminance deviation from the median was 7.8% ± 1.0%. Measured values of background illuminance ranged from 29.1 to 310.0 lux with a mean value of 107.6 lux ± 80.4 lux. While no mura or bad pixels were observed during visual inspection, damage including scrapes and scratches as well as smudges was common to most of the displays.
CONCLUSIONS: This work provides much needed data for the characterization of the performance of the large format displays used in IR and CC laboratory suites. These data may be used as a point of comparison when implementing a display QA program.

Reducing dose increases noise impacting image quality but can be offset by increasing display luminance. Two contrast detail mammography images were obtained at 26 kV and the same distance between detectors, at 45 and 50 mAs resulting in entrance surface doses of 7.09 and 7.88 mGy, respectively. They were processed to make average gray level of the background independent of the dose level while maintaining original SNR. Eight radiologists viewed the images at 420, 1000  cd/m2 , and SpotView™ a tool that resulted in an average display luminance of 3138.8  cd/m2 . Percent correct (PC) for all three luminances was higher for high versus low dose. Performance was always higher with high dose no matter what the luminance. For low dose, PC was highest with SpotView™, and SpotView™ and 1000  cd/m2 were significantly higher than 420  cd/m2 . At high dose, SpotView™ PC was significantly higher than both lower luminances. Average time per image was lower in high dose, and, at both doses, time decreased as luminance increased, with SpotView™ having significantly shorter times. Increasing luminance from 420 to 1000  cd/m2 significantly increases target detection by ∼3.0% and with SpotView™ by ∼6.2% . Increasing display luminance with SpotView™ significantly decreases reading time by 16.0%.