Open Access
Open access
Photoacoustics, volume 17, pages 100149

Quantitative comparison of frequency-domain and delay-and-sum optoacoustic image reconstruction including the effect of coherence factor weighting

Spadin Florentin 1
Jaeger Michael
Jaeger M 1
NUSTER ROBERT
Nuster Robert 2
Frenz Martin
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2020-03-01
Journal: Photoacoustics
Quartile SCImago
Q1
Quartile WOS
Q1
Impact factor7.9
ISSN22135979
Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Abstract
Image reconstruction in optoacoustic imaging is often based on a delay-and-sum (DAS) or a frequency domain (FD) algorithm. In this study, we performed a comprehensive comparison of these two algorithms together with coherence factor (CF) weighting using phantom and in-vivo mouse data obtained with optoacoustic microscopy. For this purpose we developed an FD based definition of the CF. Our results reveal the equivalence of DAS and FD, with and without CF weighting, in terms of spatial resolution and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) but highlight the clear advantage of FD in terms of computational cost, making it preferable for 3D reconstruction or real-time applications. An important additional result of this research is that, contradictory to previous studies, CF weighting does not lead to any improvement in lateral resolution.

Citations by journals

1
2
3
4
Photoacoustics
Photoacoustics, 4, 13.79%
Photoacoustics
4 publications, 13.79%
Laser Physics Letters
Laser Physics Letters, 3, 10.34%
Laser Physics Letters
3 publications, 10.34%
Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE
Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE, 3, 10.34%
Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE
3 publications, 10.34%
Journal of Biophotonics
Journal of Biophotonics, 2, 6.9%
Journal of Biophotonics
2 publications, 6.9%
Biomedical Optics Express
Biomedical Optics Express, 2, 6.9%
Biomedical Optics Express
2 publications, 6.9%
Quantum Electronics
Quantum Electronics, 1, 3.45%
Quantum Electronics
1 publication, 3.45%
Laser and Photonics Reviews
Laser and Photonics Reviews, 1, 3.45%
Laser and Photonics Reviews
1 publication, 3.45%
Photonics
Photonics, 1, 3.45%
Photonics
1 publication, 3.45%
Cancers
Cancers, 1, 3.45%
Cancers
1 publication, 3.45%
Journal of Applied Physics
Journal of Applied Physics, 1, 3.45%
Journal of Applied Physics
1 publication, 3.45%
Experimental Biology and Medicine
Experimental Biology and Medicine, 1, 3.45%
Experimental Biology and Medicine
1 publication, 3.45%
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Physics in Medicine and Biology, 1, 3.45%
Physics in Medicine and Biology
1 publication, 3.45%
Applied Acoustics
Applied Acoustics, 1, 3.45%
Applied Acoustics
1 publication, 3.45%
Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 1, 3.45%
Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
1 publication, 3.45%
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 1, 3.45%
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
1 publication, 3.45%
Applied Optics
Applied Optics, 1, 3.45%
Applied Optics
1 publication, 3.45%
1
2
3
4

Citations by publishers

1
2
3
4
5
6
Elsevier
Elsevier, 6, 20.69%
Elsevier
6 publications, 20.69%
IOP Publishing
IOP Publishing, 5, 17.24%
IOP Publishing
5 publications, 17.24%
SPIE
SPIE, 3, 10.34%
SPIE
3 publications, 10.34%
Wiley
Wiley, 3, 10.34%
Wiley
3 publications, 10.34%
Optical Society of America
Optical Society of America, 3, 10.34%
Optical Society of America
3 publications, 10.34%
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), 2, 6.9%
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)
2 publications, 6.9%
IEEE
IEEE, 2, 6.9%
IEEE
2 publications, 6.9%
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
American Institute of Physics (AIP), 1, 3.45%
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
1 publication, 3.45%
SAGE
SAGE, 1, 3.45%
SAGE
1 publication, 3.45%
1
2
3
4
5
6
  • We do not take into account publications that without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.
Metrics
Share
Cite this
GOST |
Cite this
GOST Copy
Spadin F. et al. Quantitative comparison of frequency-domain and delay-and-sum optoacoustic image reconstruction including the effect of coherence factor weighting // Photoacoustics. 2020. Vol. 17. p. 100149.
GOST all authors (up to 50) Copy
Spadin F., Jaeger M., Jaeger M., NUSTER R., Nuster R., Subochev P., Frenz M., Frenz M. Quantitative comparison of frequency-domain and delay-and-sum optoacoustic image reconstruction including the effect of coherence factor weighting // Photoacoustics. 2020. Vol. 17. p. 100149.
RIS |
Cite this
RIS Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1016/j.pacs.2019.100149
UR - https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.pacs.2019.100149
TI - Quantitative comparison of frequency-domain and delay-and-sum optoacoustic image reconstruction including the effect of coherence factor weighting
T2 - Photoacoustics
AU - Spadin, Florentin
AU - Jaeger, Michael
AU - NUSTER, ROBERT
AU - Subochev, Pavel
AU - Frenz, Martin
AU - Jaeger, M
AU - Nuster, Robert
AU - Frenz, M
PY - 2020
DA - 2020/03/01 00:00:00
PB - Elsevier
SP - 100149
VL - 17
PMID - 31890564
SN - 2213-5979
ER -
BibTex
Cite this
BibTex Copy
@article{2020_Spadin,
author = {Florentin Spadin and Michael Jaeger and ROBERT NUSTER and Pavel Subochev and Martin Frenz and M Jaeger and Robert Nuster and M Frenz},
title = {Quantitative comparison of frequency-domain and delay-and-sum optoacoustic image reconstruction including the effect of coherence factor weighting},
journal = {Photoacoustics},
year = {2020},
volume = {17},
publisher = {Elsevier},
month = {mar},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.pacs.2019.100149},
pages = {100149},
doi = {10.1016/j.pacs.2019.100149}
}
Found error?