Literature DB >> 10661324

Survey: interpolation methods in medical image processing.

T M Lehmann1, C Gönner, K Spitzer.   

Abstract

Image interpolation techniques often are required in medical imaging for image generation (e.g., discrete back projection for inverse Radon transform) and processing such as compression or resampling. Since the ideal interpolation function spatially is unlimited, several interpolation kernels of finite size have been introduced. This paper compares 1) truncated and windowed sinc; 2) nearest neighbor; 3) linear; 4) quadratic; 5) cubic B-spline; 6) cubic; g) Lagrange; and 7) Gaussian interpolation and approximation techniques with kernel sizes from 1 x 1 up to 8 x 8. The comparison is done by: 1) spatial and Fourier analyses; 2) computational complexity as well as runtime evaluations; and 3) qualitative and quantitative interpolation error determinations for particular interpolation tasks which were taken from common situations in medical image processing. For local and Fourier analyses, a standardized notation is introduced and fundamental properties of interpolators are derived. Successful methods should be direct current (DC)-constant and interpolators rather than DC-inconstant or approximators. Each method's parameters are tuned with respect to those properties. This results in three novel kernels, which are introduced in this paper and proven to be within the best choices for medical image interpolation: the 6 x 6 Blackman-Harris windowed sinc interpolator, and the C2-continuous cubic kernels with N = 6 and N = 8 supporting points. For quantitative error evaluations, a set of 50 direct digital X rays was used. They have been selected arbitrarily from clinical routine. In general, large kernel sizes were found to be superior to small interpolation masks. Except for truncated sinc interpolators, all kernels with N = 6 or larger sizes perform significantly better than N = 2 or N = 3 point methods (p << 0.005). However, the differences within the group of large-sized kernels were not significant. Summarizing the results, the cubic 6 x 6 interpolator with continuous second derivatives, as defined in (24), can be recommended for most common interpolation tasks. It appears to be the fastest six-point kernel to implement computationally. It provides eminent local and Fourier properties, is easy to implement, and has only small errors. The same characteristics apply to B-spline interpolation, but the 6 x 6 cubic avoids the intrinsic border effects produced by the B-spline technique. However, the goal of this study was not to determine an overall best method, but to present a comprehensive catalogue of methods in a uniform terminology, to define general properties and requirements of local techniques, and to enable the reader to select that method which is optimal for his specific application in medical imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10661324     DOI: 10.1109/42.816070

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging        ISSN: 0278-0062            Impact factor:   10.048


  71 in total

1.  Research on interpolation methods in medical image processing.

Authors:  Mei-Sen Pan; Xiao-Li Yang; Jing-Tian Tang
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Can electronic zoom replace magnification in mammography? A comparative Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  M Koutalonis; H Delis; A Pascoal; G Spyrou; L Costaridou; G Panayiotakis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  A non-local approach for image super-resolution using intermodality priors.

Authors:  François Rousseau
Journal:  Med Image Anal       Date:  2010-05-06       Impact factor: 8.545

4.  Respiratory acoustic thoracic imaging (RATHI): assessing deterministic interpolation techniques.

Authors:  S Charleston-Villalobos; S Cortés-Rubiano; R González-Camarena; G Chi-Lem; T Aljama-Corrales
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 5.  An image-processing toolset for diffusion tensor tractography.

Authors:  Arabinda Mishra; Yonggang Lu; Ann S Choe; Akram Aldroubi; John C Gore; Adam W Anderson; Zhaohua Ding
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2006-11-20       Impact factor: 2.546

6.  DEEP MR IMAGE SUPER-RESOLUTION USING STRUCTURAL PRIORS.

Authors:  Venkateswararao Cherukuri; Tiantong Guo; Steven J Schiff; Vishal Monga
Journal:  Proc Int Conf Image Proc       Date:  2018-09-06

7.  Airway wall attenuation: a biomarker of airway disease in subjects with COPD.

Authors:  George R Washko; Mark T Dransfield; Raúl San José Estépar; Alejandro Diaz; Shin Matsuoka; Tsuneo Yamashiro; Hiroto Hatabu; Edwin K Silverman; William C Bailey; John J Reilly
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2009-04-30

8.  Three-dimensional image registration of MR proximal femur images for the analysis of trabecular bone parameters.

Authors:  Janet Blumenfeld; Colin Studholme; Julio Carballido-Gamio; Dana Carpenter; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Fast GPU-based computation of spatial multigrid multiframe LMEM for PET.

Authors:  Moulay Ali Nassiri; Jean-François Carrier; Philippe Després
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 10.  Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging and its recent trend-a survey.

Authors:  Geetha Soujanya Chilla; Cher Heng Tan; Chenjie Xu; Chueh Loo Poh
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2015-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.