IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0152597.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography

Author

Listed:
  • Dominique Van de Sompel
  • Laura S Sasportas
  • Jesse V Jokerst
  • Sanjiv S Gambhir

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominique Van de Sompel & Laura S Sasportas & Jesse V Jokerst & Sanjiv S Gambhir, 2016. "Comparison of Deconvolution Filters for Photoacoustic Tomography," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-28, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152597
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152597
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152597&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0152597?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ignacio Algredo-Badillo & José Julio Conde-Mones & Carlos Arturo Hernández-Gracidas & María Monserrat Morín-Castillo & José Jacobo Oliveros-Oliveros & Claudia Feregrino-Uribe, 2020. "An FPGA-based analysis of trade-offs in the presence of ill-conditioning and different precision levels in computations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-26, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0152597. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.