Cargando…

Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography

In this work, we compare the merits of three temporal data deconvolution methods for use in the filtered backprojection algorithm for photoacoustic tomography (PAT). We evaluate the standard Fourier division technique, the Wiener deconvolution filter, and a Tikhonov L-2 norm regularized matrix inver...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van de Sompel, Dominique, Sasportas, Laura S., Jokerst, Jesse V., Gambhir, Sanjiv S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816281/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27031832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152597
_version_ 1782424684831178752
author Van de Sompel, Dominique
Sasportas, Laura S.
Jokerst, Jesse V.
Gambhir, Sanjiv S.
author_facet Van de Sompel, Dominique
Sasportas, Laura S.
Jokerst, Jesse V.
Gambhir, Sanjiv S.
author_sort Van de Sompel, Dominique
collection PubMed
description In this work, we compare the merits of three temporal data deconvolution methods for use in the filtered backprojection algorithm for photoacoustic tomography (PAT). We evaluate the standard Fourier division technique, the Wiener deconvolution filter, and a Tikhonov L-2 norm regularized matrix inversion method. Our experiments were carried out on subjects of various appearances, namely a pencil lead, two man-made phantoms, an in vivo subcutaneous mouse tumor model, and a perfused and excised mouse brain. All subjects were scanned using an imaging system with a rotatable hemispherical bowl, into which 128 ultrasound transducer elements were embedded in a spiral pattern. We characterized the frequency response of each deconvolution method, compared the final image quality achieved by each deconvolution technique, and evaluated each method’s robustness to noise. The frequency response was quantified by measuring the accuracy with which each filter recovered the ideal flat frequency spectrum of an experimentally measured impulse response. Image quality under the various scenarios was quantified by computing noise versus resolution curves for a point source phantom, as well as the full width at half maximum (FWHM) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of selected image features such as dots and linear structures in additional imaging subjects. It was found that the Tikhonov filter yielded the most accurate balance of lower and higher frequency content (as measured by comparing the spectra of deconvolved impulse response signals to the ideal flat frequency spectrum), achieved a competitive image resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio, and yielded the greatest robustness to noise. While the Wiener filter achieved a similar image resolution, it tended to underrepresent the lower frequency content of the deconvolved signals, and hence of the reconstructed images after backprojection. In addition, its robustness to noise was poorer than that of the Tikhonov filter. The performance of the Fourier filter was found to be the poorest of all three methods, based on the reconstructed images’ lowest resolution (blurriest appearance), generally lowest contrast-to-noise ratio, and lowest robustness to noise. Overall, the Tikhonov filter was deemed to produce the most desirable image reconstructions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4816281
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48162812016-04-14 Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography Van de Sompel, Dominique Sasportas, Laura S. Jokerst, Jesse V. Gambhir, Sanjiv S. PLoS One Research Article In this work, we compare the merits of three temporal data deconvolution methods for use in the filtered backprojection algorithm for photoacoustic tomography (PAT). We evaluate the standard Fourier division technique, the Wiener deconvolution filter, and a Tikhonov L-2 norm regularized matrix inversion method. Our experiments were carried out on subjects of various appearances, namely a pencil lead, two man-made phantoms, an in vivo subcutaneous mouse tumor model, and a perfused and excised mouse brain. All subjects were scanned using an imaging system with a rotatable hemispherical bowl, into which 128 ultrasound transducer elements were embedded in a spiral pattern. We characterized the frequency response of each deconvolution method, compared the final image quality achieved by each deconvolution technique, and evaluated each method’s robustness to noise. The frequency response was quantified by measuring the accuracy with which each filter recovered the ideal flat frequency spectrum of an experimentally measured impulse response. Image quality under the various scenarios was quantified by computing noise versus resolution curves for a point source phantom, as well as the full width at half maximum (FWHM) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of selected image features such as dots and linear structures in additional imaging subjects. It was found that the Tikhonov filter yielded the most accurate balance of lower and higher frequency content (as measured by comparing the spectra of deconvolved impulse response signals to the ideal flat frequency spectrum), achieved a competitive image resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio, and yielded the greatest robustness to noise. While the Wiener filter achieved a similar image resolution, it tended to underrepresent the lower frequency content of the deconvolved signals, and hence of the reconstructed images after backprojection. In addition, its robustness to noise was poorer than that of the Tikhonov filter. The performance of the Fourier filter was found to be the poorest of all three methods, based on the reconstructed images’ lowest resolution (blurriest appearance), generally lowest contrast-to-noise ratio, and lowest robustness to noise. Overall, the Tikhonov filter was deemed to produce the most desirable image reconstructions. Public Library of Science 2016-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4816281/ /pubmed/27031832 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152597 Text en © 2016 Van de Sompel et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Van de Sompel, Dominique
Sasportas, Laura S.
Jokerst, Jesse V.
Gambhir, Sanjiv S.
Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography
title Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography
title_full Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography
title_fullStr Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography
title_short Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography
title_sort comparison of deconvolution filters for photoacoustic tomography
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816281/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27031832
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152597
work_keys_str_mv AT vandesompeldominique comparisonofdeconvolutionfiltersforphotoacoustictomography
AT sasportaslauras comparisonofdeconvolutionfiltersforphotoacoustictomography
AT jokerstjessev comparisonofdeconvolutionfiltersforphotoacoustictomography
AT gambhirsanjivs comparisonofdeconvolutionfiltersforphotoacoustictomography