PURPOSE: The noise variance versus spatial resolution relationship in differential phase contrast (DPC) projection imaging and computed tomography (CT) are derived and compared to conventional absorption-based x-ray projection imaging and CT. METHODS: The scaling law for DPC-CT is theoretically derived and subsequently validated with phantom results from an experimental Talbot-Lau interferometer system. RESULTS: For the DPC imaging method, the noise variance in the differential projection images follows the same inverse-square law with spatial resolution as in conventional absorption-based x-ray imaging projections. However, both in theory and experimental results, in DPC-CT the noise variance scales with spatial resolution following an inverse linear relationship with fixed slice thickness. CONCLUSIONS: The scaling law in DPC-CT implies a lesser noise, and therefore dose, penalty for moving to higher spatial resolutions when compared to conventional absorption-based CT in order to maintain the same contrast-to-noise ratio.
PURPOSE: The noise variance versus spatial resolution relationship in differential phase contrast (DPC) projection imaging and computed tomography (CT) are derived and compared to conventional absorption-based x-ray projection imaging and CT. METHODS: The scaling law for DPC-CT is theoretically derived and subsequently validated with phantom results from an experimental Talbot-Lau interferometer system. RESULTS: For the DPC imaging method, the noise variance in the differential projection images follows the same inverse-square law with spatial resolution as in conventional absorption-based x-ray imaging projections. However, both in theory and experimental results, in DPC-CT the noise variance scales with spatial resolution following an inverse linear relationship with fixed slice thickness. CONCLUSIONS: The scaling law in DPC-CT implies a lesser noise, and therefore dose, penalty for moving to higher spatial resolutions when compared to conventional absorption-based CT in order to maintain the same contrast-to-noise ratio.
Authors: F Pfeiffer; M Bech; O Bunk; P Kraft; E F Eikenberry; Ch Brönnimann; C Grünzweig; C David Journal: Nat Mater Date: 2008-01-20 Impact factor: 43.841
Authors: Julia Herzen; Tilman Donath; Franz Pfeiffer; Oliver Bunk; Celestino Padeste; Felix Beckmann; Andreas Schreyer; Christian David Journal: Opt Express Date: 2009-06-08 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Timm Weitkamp; Ana Diaz; Christian David; Franz Pfeiffer; Marco Stampanoni; Peter Cloetens; Eric Ziegler Journal: Opt Express Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 3.894