1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Fluorescence diffuse optical tomography using the split Bregman method
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.3656063
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/11/10.1118/1.3656063
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/11/10.1118/1.3656063
View: Figures

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Finite element model corresponding to the physical slab-geometry phantom with a cylindrical region filled with fluorophore.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Comparison of methods in terms of (a) minimum solution error norm for a range of the data fidelity parameter λ, and (b) relative solution error versus iteration number, for the parameter λ that minimizes the error in Fig. (a).

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Comparison of methods in terms of the negative relative part of the solution, (33), versus the iteration number, for simulated phantom data (same results as Fig. 2).

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Performance of SB for simulated phantom data. (a) Behavior of the optimum iteration number that led to optimum results (in terms of the solution error norm) versus the inverse of the data fidelity parameter λ, for a fixed value of the nonnegativity parameter (α = 10− 1). (b) Solution error norm versus λ and α (same results as in Figs. 2 and 3 for SB).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Reconstructions of computer-simulated phantom data with the different methods (same results as in Figs. 2 and 3). Axial, coronal, and sagittal slices (columns from left to right) for (a–c) target in the reconstruction mesh, reconstructions with (d–f) GN, (g–i) GN-P0, and (j–l) SB. The negative part of images has been set to zero.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Profiles along y- and z-axes of reconstructed images (Fig. 5) using GN, GN-P0 and SB.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Reconstruction of experimental phantom data with GN, for two data fidelity parameters (λ = 0.32 and λ = 0.52); and with SB, for a data fidelity parameter λ = 10− 3 and a nonnegativity weighting parameter λ = 10− 2. a) Signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR), b) data misfit , and c) the relative nonnegativity norm of the image versus the number of iterations [Eq. (33)].

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Axial, coronal and sagittal slices (columns from left to right) for the reconstruction of experimental phantom data. Reconstruction with GN for data fidelity parameters (a–c) λ = 0.32 and (d–f) λ = 0.52 [Fig. 7(b)]. (g–l) Reconstructions with SB (for λ = 10−3 and a nonnegativity weighting parameter λ = 10−2) at iterations 37 and 61 that corresponded to the same data misfits than with GN in Fig. 7(b). The negative part of images has been set to zero.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/11/10.1118/1.3656063
2011-10-28
2014-04-23
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Fluorescence diffuse optical tomography using the split Bregman method
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/38/11/10.1118/1.3656063
10.1118/1.3656063
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM