medical imaging is the vanguard of signal processing in 21st : DSP

I reckon once upon time that geophysics (particularly seismology)
was driving a lot of research into signal processing.
Now it seems to me they are falling behind.
I think that medical imaging is now ahead of them in finding
new random noise attenuation tricks, for example.

A penny for your thoughts?



Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

George Orwell wrote:
> I reckon once upon time that geophysics (particularly seismology)
> was driving a lot of research into signal processing.
> Now it seems to me they are falling behind.
> I think that medical imaging is now ahead of them in finding
> new random noise attenuation tricks, for example.
>
> A penny for your thoughts?

Re the subject, certainly not signal processing in general, but perhaps
image processing of a particular kind. The vanguard is almost certainly
military systems, both for images and signals like sonar, with satellite
and other radio communications not lagging by much.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 31 Jan, 01:45, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> I reckon once upon time that geophysics (particularly seismology)
> was driving a lot of research into signal processing.

Apart from John Parker Burg's work in the mid/late '60s, I can't
see that much of what is now 'standard DSP' originates from
geophysics? As far as I can tell, Geophysicists are users of
DSP rather than developers of DSP...

Rune

On 31 Jan, 02:34, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Re the subject, certainly not signal processing in general, but perhaps
> image processing of a particular kind. The vanguard is almost certainly
> military systems, both for images and signals like sonar, with satellite
> and other radio communications not lagging by much.

Medical imaging can't be compared to those sorts of applications.

First of all, medical applications (usually) have total access to
the subject; sensors can be fitted all around the outside of the
human body and some times inside.

Second, the general anatomy of the human body is known; medics
look for individual deviations from well/known baselines. Even
if one examine non/human animals, the general properties of
biological tissue don't vary by much.

Third, the medics are free to manipulate the subject in order to
facilitate measuremets, e.g. by inserting contrast agents.

Medical imaging is a discipline all in its own. Results obtained
there should not be expected to be useful in other applications.

Rune

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:27:52 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
<allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

>On 31 Jan, 01:45, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>> I reckon once upon time that geophysics (particularly seismology)
>> was driving a lot of research into signal processing.
>
>Apart from John Parker Burg's work in the mid/late '60s, I can't
>see that much of what is now 'standard DSP' originates from
>geophysics? As far as I can tell, Geophysicists are users of
>DSP rather than developers of DSP...

Interestingly, major DSP player Texas Instruments started out in
geophysics.

Regards,
Allan

The greatest advancements are made in areas of study where there is
rapid, accurate, feedback from experimental results. An example of an
area without good feedback is the USA judicial system, e.g., recent
DNA ****ysis shows that jurors and judges have a poor history of
making correct decisions. The judicial system isn't going to rapidly
improve because there is no easy way to view the results of changes.

An area with good feedback from experimental results is Natural Image
Processing because it is done on a computer and almost everyone knows
what they are looking at and what it should look like. However, this
would be much better if every image processing journal forced authors
to post full sized images on the web because you really can't see much
in the tiny pictures printed in journals.

With respect to good feedback, Medical Imaging falls behind because
relatively few people know what they are looking at or what it should
look like. The researchers may almost as well be blind.

Geophysics - What feedback?

On Jan 30, 6:45 pm, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> I reckon once upon time that geophysics (particularly seismology)
> was driving a lot of research into signal processing.
> Now it seems to me they are falling behind.
> I think that medical imaging is now ahead of them in finding
> new random noise attenuation tricks, for example.
>
> A penny for your thoughts?
>
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente   |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore   |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni      |For more info
>                  https://www.mixmaster.it

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 02:34, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> Re the subject, certainly not signal processing in general, but perhaps
>> image processing of a particular kind. The vanguard is almost certainly
>> military systems, both for images and signals like sonar, with satellite
>> and other radio communications not lagging by much.
>
> Medical imaging can't be compared to those sorts of applications.
>
> First of all, medical applications (usually) have total access to
> the subject; sensors can be fitted all around the outside of the
> human body and some times inside.
>
> Second, the general anatomy of the human body is known; medics
> look for individual deviations from well/known baselines. Even
> if one examine non/human animals, the general properties of
> biological tissue don't vary by much.
>
> Third, the medics are free to manipulate the subject in order to
> facilitate measuremets, e.g. by inserting contrast agents.
>
> Medical imaging is a discipline all in its own. Results obtained
> there should not be expected to be useful in other applications.

There is common ground; the manipulation of images already obtained.
Opening, closing, erosion, and dilation, as well as more sophisticated
operations (soft masking, e.g.) can help bring out detail in images from
many disciplines.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 31 Jan, 18:55, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Rune Allnor wrote:

> > Medical imaging is a discipline all in its own. Results obtained
> > there should not be expected to be useful in other applications.
>
> There is common ground; the manipulation of images already obtained.
> Opening, closing, erosion, and dilation, as well as more sophisticated
> operations (soft masking, e.g.) can help bring out detail in images from
> many disciplines.

I did not say medical DSP is isolated from everything else;
I said the circumstances are so unique it would be foolish
to *expect* methods developed there to be useful elsewhere.

It's like winning the lottery. Every week somebody actually
wins; only fools expect to.

Rune

Rune Allnor wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 18:55, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> Rune Allnor wrote:
>
>>> Medical imaging is a discipline all in its own. Results obtained
>>> there should not be expected to be useful in other applications.
>> There is common ground; the manipulation of images already obtained.
>> Opening, closing, erosion, and dilation, as well as more sophisticated
>> operations (soft masking, e.g.) can help bring out detail in images from
>> many disciplines.
>
> I did not say medical DSP is isolated from everything else;
> I said the circumstances are so unique it would be foolish
> to *expect* methods developed there to be useful elsewhere.
>
> It's like winning the lottery. Every week somebody actually
> wins; only fools expect to.

We agree, then.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Jan 31, 9:20 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:
....
> An example of an
> area without good feedback is the USA judicial system, e.g., recent
> DNA ****ysis shows that jurors and judges have a poor history of
> making correct decisions. The judicial system isn't going to rapidly
> improve because there is no easy way to view the results of changes.

It seems ironic that the feedbackless example is a case where new
technology identified errors that led the system to adapt by adopting
new technology. Maybe that's feedforward.

> An area with good feedback from experimental results is Natural Image
> Processing because it is done on a computer and almost everyone knows
> what they are looking at and what it should look like. However, this
> would be much better if every image processing journal forced authors
> to post full sized images on the web because you really can't see much
> in the tiny pictures printed in journals.

If everyone knows 'what they are looking at and what it should look
like', why should bigger images be a publishing requirement?

> With respect to good feedback, Medical Imaging falls behind because
> relatively few people know what they are looking at or what it should
> look like. The researchers may almost as well be blind.

That may make it a good thing that only a 'relatively few people'
practice medical imaging.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
http://stores.lulu.com/dbd