Abboud, S., Weiss, F., Siegel, E., Jeudy, J. (2013). TB or not TB: interreader and intrareader variability in screening diagnosis on an iPad versus a traditional display. J Am Coll Radiol, 10(1), 42–44.Google Scholar

Abdullah, B.J., Ng, K.H. (2001). In the eyes of the beholder: what we see is not what we get. Br J Radiol, 74(884), 675–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ACR. (1999). ACR Mammography Quality Control Manual. Reston, VA: ACR. Available at: www.acraccreditation.org/~/media/ACRAccreditation/Documents/Mammography/Clinical_Image_SECTION_1999MammoQC.pdf?la=en (accessed January 8, 2018).Google Scholar

ACR. (2001). ACR Practice Guideline for the Performance of Whole Breast Digital Mammography (Res. 7). Reston, VA: ACR.Google Scholar

Ardito, M. (1994). Studies of the influence of display size and picture brightness on the preferred viewing distance for HDTV programs. SMPTE J, 103(8), 517–522.Google Scholar

Badano, A. (2017). Considerations for the use of handheld image viewers: a report of AAPM task group 260. In: Chen, P.H., Prevedello, L.M.S. (eds.) SIIM 2017 Scientific Session Productivity and Workflow. Pittsburg, PA: SIIM, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

Badano, A., Flynn, M.J., Kanicki, J. (2004). High-Fidelity Medical Imaging Displays (Vol. 63). Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press, pp. 10–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barco, . (2017). Coronis Fusion 10MP. Available at: www.barco.com/en/Products/Displays-monitors-workstations/Medical-displays/Diagnostic-displays/10-MegaPixel-wide-screen-diagnostic-grayscale-display-system.aspx (accessed January 8, 2018).Google Scholar

Barten, P.G. (1999). Contrast Sensitivity of the Human Eye and its Effects on Image Quality (Vol. 72). Bellingham, WA: SPIE Press.Google Scholar

Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., Schwela, D.H. (2000). New WHO guidelines for community noise. Noise Vibrat Worldwide, 31(4), 24–29.Google Scholar

Bessho, Y., Yamaguchi, M., Fujita, H., Azuma, M. (2009). Usefulness of reduced image display size in softcopy reading. Acad Radiol, 16(8), 940–946.Google Scholar

Bevins, N.B., Flynn, M.J., Silosky, M.S., Walz-Flannigan, A.I. (2017). Display quality assurance: a report of AAPM task group 270. AAPM. Available at: www.aapm.org/eval/m/Quiz.aspx?sid=7117&mid=127 (accessed January 8, 2018).Google Scholar

Bick, U., Diekmann, F. (2010). Digital Mammography. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar

Boonn, W.W., Flanders, A.E. (2005). Informatics in radiology (infoRAD): survey of personal digital assistant use in radiology. Radiographics, 25(2), 537–541.Google Scholar

Brennan, P.C., McEntee, M., Evanoff, M., Phillips, P., O’Connor, W.T., Manning, D.J. (2007). Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist. AJR, 188(2), W177–W180.Google Scholar

Brennan, P.C., Ryan, J., Evanoff, M., Toomey, R.J., O’Beirne, A., Manning, D., McEntee, M. (2008). The impact of acoustic noise found within clinical departments on radiology performance. Acad Radiol, 15(4), 472–476.Google Scholar

Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Perception and Communication. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Burkitt, H.G., Young, B., Heath, J.W. (1994). Wheater’s Functional Histology – A Text and Colour Atlas, 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, pp. 376–386.Google Scholar

Butler, M.L., Lowe, J., Toomey, R.J., Maher, M., Evanoff, M.E., Rainford, L. (2013). The effect of viewing distance on observer performance in skeletal radiographs. In: SPIE Medical Imaging. Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp. 867315–867315.Google Scholar

Carmichael, J.H.E., Maccia, C., Moores, B.M., Oestmann, J.W., Schibilla, H., Teunen, D., et al. (1996). European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images. Luxembourg: ECSC-EC-EAEC.Google Scholar

CCOHS. (2017). OSH answers fact sheets. Available at: www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/max_temp.html (accessed January 8, 2018).Google Scholar

Chawla, A.S., Samei, E. (2007). Ambient illumination revisited: a new adaptation-based approach for optimizing medical imaging reading environments. Med Phys, 34(1), 81–90.Google Scholar

Choudhri, A.F., Carr, T.M., 3rd, Ho, C.P., Stone, J.R., Gay, S.B., Lambert, D.L. (2012). Handheld device review of abdominal CT for the evaluation of acute appendicitis. J Digit Imag, 25(4), 492–496.Google Scholar

Darbyshire, J.L., Young, J.D. (2013). An investigation of sound levels on intensive care units with reference to the WHO guidelines. Crit Care, 17(5), R187.Google Scholar

Dasgupta, S., Wheeler, D., Huq, M., Khaliquzzaman, M. (2009). Improving indoor air quality for poor families: a controlled experiment in Bangladesh. Indoor Air, 19(1), 22–32.Google Scholar

Dreyer, K.J., Hirschhorn, D.S., Thrall, J.H., PACS, M. (2006). A Guide to the Digital Revolution. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Ekpo, E.U., McEntee, M.F. (2015). An evaluation of performance characteristics of primary display devices. J Digit Imag, 29(2), 175–182.Google Scholar

Emoto, M., Sugawara, M. (2016). Viewers’ optimization of preferred viewing distance by spatial resolution of TV display. Displays, 45, 1–5.Google Scholar

Emoto, M., Sugawara, M., Nojiri, Y. (2008). Viewing angle dependency of visually-induced motion sickness in viewing wide-field images by subjective and autonomic nervous indices. Displays, 29(2), 90–99.Google Scholar

European Commission. Directorate-General for Environment, Nuclear Safety, and Civil Protection, and European Commission. (1997). Radiation protection 91: criteria for acceptability of radiological (including radiotherapy) and nuclear medicine installations. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/radiation-protection-publications.Google Scholar

Fisher, P.D., Brauer, G.W. (1989). Impact of image size on effectiveness of digital imaging systems. J Digit Imag, 2(1), 39–41.Google Scholar

Flynn, M.J., Kanicki, J., Badano, A., Eyler, W.R. (1999). High-fidelity electronic display of digital radiographs. Radiographics, 19(6), 1653–1669.Google Scholar

Fuchsjäger, M.H., Schaefer-Prokop, C.M., Eisenhuber, E., Homolka, P., Weber, M., Funovics, M.A., Prokop, M. (2003). Impact of ambient light and window settings on the detectability of catheters on soft-copy display of chest radiographs at bedside. AJR, 181(5), 1415–1421.Google Scholar

Fujita, H., Kuwahata, N., Hattori, H., Kinoshita, H., Fukuda, H. (2016). Investigation of optimal display size for viewing T1-weighted MR images of the brain using a digital contrast-detail phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 17(1), 353–359.Google Scholar

Geller, J. (2014). Food and Drug Administration issues final guidance on mobile medical applications. J Clin Eng, 39(1), 4–7.Google Scholar

Gregory, R.L. (1998). Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing (5th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, p, 55.Google Scholar

Gur, D., Klym, A.H., King, J.L., Maitz, G.S., Mello-Thoms, C., Rockette, H.E., Thaete, F.L. (2006). The effect of image display size on observer performance an assessment of variance components. Acad Radiol, 13(4), 409–413.Google Scholar

Harisinghani, M.G., Blake, M.A., Saksena, M., Hahn, P.F., Gervais, D., Zalis, M., et al. (2004). Importance and effects of altered workplace ergonomics in modern radiology suites. Radiographics, 24(2), 615–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hirschorn, D.S., Krupinski, E.A., Flynn, M.J. (2014). PACS displays: how to select the right display technology. J Am Coll Radiol, 11(12), 1270–1276.Google Scholar

Ichinohe, K., Takahashi, M., Tooyama, N. (2003). Treatment delay and radiological errors in patients with bone metastases. Braz J Med Biol Res, 36(10), 1419–1424.Google Scholar

Jaschtnski-Kruza, W. (1990). On the preferred viewing distances to screen and document at VDU workplaces. Ergonomics, 33(8), 1055–1063.Google Scholar

John, S., Poh, A.C.C., Lim, T.C.C., Chan, E.H.Y., Chong, L.R. (2012). The iPad tablet computer for mobile on-call radiology diagnosis? Auditing discrepancy in CT and MRI reporting. J Digit Imag 25(5), 628–634.Google Scholar

Kalyanpur, A., Panughpath, S. (2012). Radiology and the mobile device: radiology in motion. Ind J Radiol Imag, 22(4), 246.Google Scholar

Kanal, K.M., Krupinski, E., Berns, E.A., Geiser, W.R., Karellas, A., Mainiero, M.B., et al. (2012). ACR–AAPM–SIIM practice guideline for determinants of image quality in digital mammography. J Digit Imag, 26(1), 10–25.Google Scholar

Kelsey, C.A., Moseley, R.D., Jr, Mettler, F.A., Jr, Briscoe, D.E. (1981). Observer performance as a function of viewing distance. Invest Radiol, 16(5), 435–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Khademi, G., Roudi, M., Shah Farhat, A., Shahabian, M. (2011). Noise pollution in intensive care units and emergency wards. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol, 23(65), 141–148.Google Scholar

Kim, J.-P., Kim, J.-P., Kim, D.H., Kim, S.-J. (2005). Design of software architecture for mobile devices supporting interworking between CDMA and WiBro. In The 7th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, 2005, ICACT 2005. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/icact.2005.246003 (accessed January 8, 2018).Google Scholar

Kim, Y.S.K., Park, J. J., Kim, S.H. (2007). PDA-phone-based instant transmission of radiological images over a CDMA network by combining the PACS screen with a Bluetooth-interfaced local wireless link. J Digit Imag, 20(2), 131–139.Google Scholar

Kim, C.J.-W., Lee, S.-S., Huh, K.-H., Yi, W.-J., Heo, M.-S., Choi, S.-C. (2011). Effect of LCD monitor type and observer experience on diagnostic performance in soft-copy interpretations of the maxillary sinus on panoramic radiographs. Imag Sci Dent, 41(1), 11–16.Google Scholar

Kim, C., Kang, B., Choi, H.J., Park, J.B. (2015). A feasibility study of real-time remote CT reading for suspected acute appendicitis using an iPhone. J Digit Imag, 28(4), 399–406.Google Scholar

Krupinski, E.A. (2000). Practical applications of perceptual research. In: Beutel, J., Kundel, H.L., Van Metter, R.L. (eds.) Handbook of Medical Imaging: Physics and Psychophysics. Bellingham, WA: SPIE, p. 905.Google Scholar

Krupinski, E.A. (2014). Human factors and human-computer considerations in teleradiology and telepathology. Healthcare (Basel, Switz), 2(1), 94–114.Google Scholar

Lee, K.S. (2005). Ergonomics in total quality management: how can we sell ergonomics to management? Ergonomics, 48(5), 547–558.Google Scholar

Liukkonen, E., Jartti, A., Haapea, M., Oikarinen, H., Ahvenjärvi, L., Mattila, S., et al. (2016). Effect of display type and room illuminance in chest radiographs. Eur Radiol, 26(9), 3171–3179.Google Scholar

Marchand, G.C., Nardi, N.M., Reynolds, D., Pamoukov, S. (2014). The impact of the classroom built environment on student perceptions and learning. J Environ Psychol, 40, 187–197.Google Scholar

Mazer, S.E. (2005). Hear, hear. Assessing and resolving hospital noise issues. Health Facil Manage, 18(4), 24–29.Google Scholar

McEntee, M., Gafoor, S. (2009). Ambient temperature variation affects radiological diagnostic performance. In: SPIE Medical Imaging. Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp. 72631H–72631H.Google Scholar

McLeod, T.G., Ebbert, J.O., Lymp, J.F. (2003). Survey assessment of personal digital assistant use among trainees and attending physicians. JAMIA, 10(6), 605–607.Google Scholar

McNulty, J.P., Ryan, J.T., Evanoff, M.G., Rainford, L.A. (2012). Flexible image evaluation: iPad versus secondary-class monitors for review of MR spinal emergency cases, a comparative study. Acad Radiol, 19(8), 1023–1028.Google Scholar

National Electrical Manufacturers Association. (2007). Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 14: Grayscale Display Standard Function. Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).Google Scholar

Norweck, J.T., Anthony Seibert, J., Andriole, K.P., Clunie, D.A., Curran, B.H., Flynn, M.J., et al. (2013). ACR–AAPM–SIIM technical standard for electronic practice of medical imaging. J Digit Imag, 26(1), 38–52.Google Scholar

O’Shea, R.P. (1991). Thumb’s rule tested: visual angle of thumb’s width is about 2 deg. Perception, 20(3), 415–418.Google Scholar

Pollard, B.J., Chawla, A.S., Delong, D.M., Hashimoto, N., Samei, E. (2008). Object detectability at increased ambient lighting conditions. Med Phys, 35(6), 2204–2213.Google Scholar

Pollard, B.J., Samei, E., Chawla, A.S., Baker, J., Ghate, S., Kim, C., et al. (2009). The influence of increased ambient lighting on mass detection in mammograms. Acad Radiol, 16(3), 299–304.Google Scholar

Prabhu, S.P., Gandhi, S., Goddard, P.R. (2005). Ergonomics of digital imaging. Br J Radiol, 78(931), 582–586.Google Scholar

Reiner, B.I., Siegel, E.L. (2006). PACS and productivity. In: Filmless Radiology pp. 103–112. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar

Riccò, M., Cattani, S., Gualerzi, G., Signorelli, C. (2016). Work with visual display units and musculoskeletal disorders: a cross-sectional study. Medycyna Pracy, 67(6), 707–719.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, M.A., Visvanathan, A., Murchison, J.T., Brady, R.R. (2013). Radiology smartphone applications; current provision and cautions. Insights Imag, 4(5), 555–562.Google Scholar

Samei, E., Badano, A., Chakraborty, D., Compton, K. (2005a). Assessment of Display Performance for Medical Imaging Systems, Report of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 18. Bellingham, WA: AAPM.Google Scholar

Samei, E., Badano, A., Chakraborty, D., Compton, K., Cornelius, C., Corrigan, K., et al. (2005b). Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys, 32(4), 1205–1225.Google Scholar

Schaefer, C.M., Greene, R., Oestmann, J.W., Hall, D.A., Llewellyn, H.J., McCarthy, K.A., et al. (1990). Digital storage phosphor imaging versus conventional film radiography in CT-documented chest disease. Radiology, 174(1), 207–210.Google Scholar

Schlechtweg, P.M., Kammerer, F.J., Seuss, H., Uder, M., Hammon, M. (2016). Mobile image interpretation: diagnostic performance of CT exams displayed on a tablet computer+ in detecting abdominopelvic hemorrhage. J Digit Imag, 29(2), 183–188.Google Scholar

Schwela, D.H. (2001). The new World Health Organization guidelines for community noise. Noise Control Eng J, 49(4), 193.Google Scholar

Sekuler, R., Blake, R. (1994). Perception. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Seltzer, S.E., Saini, S., Bramson, R.T., Kelly, P., Levine, L., Chiango, B.F., et al. (1998). Can academic radiology departments become more efficient and cost less? Radiology, 209(2), 405–410.Google Scholar

Sharpe, E.E., 3rd, Kendrick, M., Strickland, C., Dodd, G.D., 3rd. (2013). The radiology resident iPad toolbox: an educational and clinical tool for radiology residents. J Am Coll Radiol, 10(7), 527–532.Google Scholar

Shintaku, W.H., Scarbecz, M., Venturin, J.S. (2012). Evaluation of interproximal caries using the IPad 2 and a liquid crystal display monitor. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 113(5), e40–e44.Google Scholar

Siegel, L. (1962). Fatigue and boredom. In: Siegel, L. (ed.) Industrial Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 193–209.Google Scholar

Siegel, R.B., Abiri, M., Chacko, A., Morin, R., Ro, D.W., et al. (2000). The filmless radiology reading room: a survey of established picture archiving and communication system sites. J Digit Imag, 13(S1), 22–23.Google Scholar

Straub, W.H., Gur, D., Good, W.F., Campbell, W.L., Davis, P.L., Hecht, S.T., et al. (1991). Primary CT diagnosis of abdominal masses in a PACS environment. Radiology, 178(3), 739–743.Google Scholar

Sund, P., Båth, M., Månsson, L. G. (2008). Detection of low contrast test patterns on an LCD with different luminance and illuminance settings. Proc SPIE, 6917, 69170N.Google Scholar

Tewes, S., Rodt, T., Marquardt, S., Evangelidou, E., Wacker, F.K., von Falck, C. (2013). Evaluation of the use of a tablet computer with a high-resolution display for interpreting emergency CT scans. Rofo, 185(11), 1063–1069.Google Scholar

Thomas, J.A., Chakrabarti, K., Kaczmarek, R.V., Maslennikov, A., Mitchell, C.A., Romanyukha, A. (2006). Optimization of reading conditions for flat panel displays. J Digit Imag, 19(2), 181–187.Google Scholar

Uffmann, M., Prokop, M., Kupper, W., Mang, T., Fiedler, V., Schaefer-Prokop, C. (2005). Soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs: effect of ambient light and automatic optimization of monitor luminance. Invest Radiol, 40(3), 180–185.Google Scholar

Venjakob, A.C., Marnitz, T., Phillips, P., Mello-Thoms, C.R. (2016). Image size influences visual search and perception of hemorrhages when reading cranial CT: an eye-tracking study. Hum Factors, 58(3), 441–451.Google Scholar

WHO. (1982). Quality assurance in diagnostic radiology. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/39095/1/9241541644.pdf (accessed January 8, 2018).Google Scholar

Witterseh, T., Wyon, D.P., Clausen, G. (2004). The effects of moderate heat stress and open-plan office noise distraction on SBS symptoms and on the performance of office work. Indoor Air, 14 Suppl 8, 30–40.Google Scholar

Wyon, D.P., Wargocki, P. (2013). Room Temperature Effects on Office Work. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 181–192.Google Scholar

Yamaguchi, M., Fujita, H., Bessho, Y., Inoue, T., Asai, Y., Murase, K. (2011). Investigation of optimal display size for detecting ground-glass opacity on high resolution computed tomography using a new digital contrast-detail phantom. Eur J Radiol, 80(3), 845–850.Google Scholar

Yamazaki, A., Liu, P., Cheng, W.-C., Badano, A. (2013). Image quality characteristics of handheld display devices for medical imaging. PLoS One, 8(11), e79243.Google Scholar

Zwart, C.M., He, M., Wu, T., Demaerschalk, B.M., Mitchell, J.R., Hara, A.K. (2015). Selection and pilot implementation of a mobile image viewer: a case study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3(2), e45.Google Scholar