Next Article in Journal
FPGA-Based Processor Acceleration for Image Processing Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancement and Segmentation Workflow for the Developing Zebrafish Vasculature
Previous Article in Special Issue
Resolution Limits in Photoacoustic Imaging Caused by Acoustic Attenuation
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
J. Imaging 2019, 5(1), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging5010015

Comparison of Piezoelectric and Optical Projection Imaging for Three-Dimensional In Vivo Photoacoustic Tomography

Department of Physics, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 26 November 2018 / Revised: 22 December 2018 / Accepted: 3 January 2019 / Published: 11 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biomedical Photoacoustic Imaging: Technologies and Methods)
Full-Text   |   PDF [2518 KB, uploaded 11 January 2019]   |  

Abstract

Ultrasound sensor arrays for photoacoustic tomography (PAT) are investigated that create line projections of the pressure generated in an object by pulsed light illumination. Projections over a range of viewing angles enable the reconstruction of a three-dimensional image. Two line-integrating arrays are compared in this study for the in vivo imaging of vasculature, a piezoelectric array, and a camera-based setup that captures snapshots of the acoustic field emanating from the sample. An array consisting of 64 line-shaped sensors made of piezoelectric polymer film, which was arranged on a half-cylindrical area, was used to acquire spatiotemporal data from a human finger. The optical setup used phase contrast to visualize the acoustic field generated in the leg of a mouse after a selected delay time. Time-domain back projection and frequency-domain back propagation were used for image reconstruction from the piezoelectric and optical data, respectively. The comparison yielded an about threefold higher resolution for the optical setup and an about 13-fold higher sensitivity of the piezoelectric array. Due to the high density of data in the camera images, the optical technique gave images without streak artifacts, which were visible in the piezo array images due to the discrete detector positions. Overall, both detection concepts are suited for almost real-time projection imaging and three-dimensional imaging with a data acquisition time of less than a minute without averaging, which was limited by the repetition rate of the laser. View Full-Text
Keywords: photoacoustic imaging; optoacoustic imaging; ultrasound array; piezoelectric polymer; phase contrast; in vivo imaging; projection imaging photoacoustic imaging; optoacoustic imaging; ultrasound array; piezoelectric polymer; phase contrast; in vivo imaging; projection imaging
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Nuster, R.; Paltauf, G. Comparison of Piezoelectric and Optical Projection Imaging for Three-Dimensional In Vivo Photoacoustic Tomography. J. Imaging 2019, 5, 15.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
J. Imaging EISSN 2313-433X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top