PubMed · 1610248
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M F McKneally. 1992. Lobectomy without a rib spreader.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(92)91130-2
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Illumination of only a few key points on a moving human body or face is enough to convey a compelling perception of human motion. A full understanding of the perception of biological motion from point-light displays requires accurate comparison with the perception of motion in normal, fully illuminated versions of the same images. Traditionally, these two types of stimuli (point-light and fully illuminated) have been filmed separately, allowing the introduction of uncontrolled variation across recordings. This is undesirable for accurate comparison of perceptual performance across the two types of display. This article describes simple techniques, using proprietary software, that allow production of point-light and fully illuminated video displays from identical recordings. These techniques are potentially useful for many studies of motion perception, by permitting precise comparison of perceptual performances across point-light displays and their fully illuminated counterparts with accuracy and comparative ease.
Fifteen large-area, flat-panel displays used for clinical image review were evaluated for image quality and compared with 30 comparably sized cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors. Measurements were of image display patterns by Video Electronic Standards Association (VESA) and a commercial product. Field measurements were made of: maximum and minimum luminance, ambient lighting, characteristic curve (gamma), point shape and size, high-contrast resolution, uniformity, and distortion. Assessments were made of pixel defects, latent image patterns, ghosting artifacts, and viewing angle luminance. Also, a questionnaire was generated for users of the flat-panel and CRT units. Seventeen respondents indicated no preference for either flat panel or CRT. Results show these flat panels to have higher luminance (mean, 177.7 cd/m2); larger number of just noticeable differences (JNDs; n = 555), higher gamma, comparable uniformity, and warm-up time. CRTs had less angle viewing dependence and far fewer artifacts (ghosting and latent images). Our questionnaire showed active matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCD) to be fully acceptable for clinical image viewing. Furthermore, the statistical results show that further testing for new AMLCDs of this type is unwarranted.