| Literature DB >> 35996215 |
Tongyu Huang1,2, Ruoyu Meng3, Jiawei Song1,4, Tongjun Bu1, Yuanhuan Zhu5, Migao Li6, Ran Liao1, Hui Ma1,2,4.
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Reflection Mueller matrix imaging is suitable for characterizing the microstructure of bulk specimens and probing dynamic processes in living animals, there are always demands for speed and accuracy for such applications to avoid possible artifacts and reveal a sample's intrinsic properties. AIM: To demonstrate a design of collinear reflection Mueller matrix fast imaging microscope based on dual division of focal plane (DoFP) polarimeters (DoFPs-CRMMM) which has high measurement speed and accuracy. APPROACH: In DoFPs-CRMMM, to improve the measurement speed, we applied the dual DoFP polarimeters design on the collinear reflection system for the first time to achieve fast imaging in about 2 s. To improve the measurement accuracy, we improved the double-pass eigenvalue calibration method (dp-ECM) by background light correction, and explored the optimization of the set of reference samples.Entities:
Keywords: DoFP polarimeter; Mueller matrix; dynamic process; microscope; polarization
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35996215 PMCID: PMC9394738 DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.27.8.086501
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Biomed Opt ISSN: 1083-3668 Impact factor: 3.758
Fig. 1Schematic and photograph of (a) DoFPs-CRMMM. (b) DoFP polarimeter.
Fig. 2The relationship between , , and .
Fig. 3(a) MMs of the linear polarizer (blue) and wave plate (green) with different azimuths on the mirror measured by DoFPs-CRMMM using method a. (b) The absolute errors of MMs of the linear polarizer with different azimuths on the mirror measured by DoFPs-CRMMM using different calibration methods. (c) The absolute errors of MMs of the wave plate with different azimuths on the mirror measured by DoFPs-CRMMM using different calibration methods. (method a: improved dp-ECM using a 1/8 wave plate and background light correction; method b: dp-ECM using a quarter wave plate and background light correction; method c: dp-ECM using a 1/8 wave plate without background light correction). The display range of m24, m34, m42, and m43 in (c) is [0, 1.68] for better visualization.
Average MAE and average standard deviation of the MM elements after three different calibration methods.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Linear polarizer and mirror | Wave plate and mirror | Linear polarizer and mirror | Wave plate and mirror | |
| Method a | 0.0070 | 0.0097 | 0.0048 | 0.0045 |
| Method b | 0.0134 | 0.1857 | 0.0048 | 0.0483 |
| Method c | 0.0351 | 0.0108 | 0.0040 | 0.0044 |
Method a: dp-ECM using a 1/8 wave plate and background light correction.
Method b: dp-ECM using a quarter wave plate and background light correction.
Method c: dp-ECM using a 1/8 wave plate without background light correction.
Fig. 4MMD parameters (a) linear retardance , (b) depolarization and (c) diattenuation of the wave plate with 0 deg azimuth on the mirror calibrated by method a (the first row), method b (the second row), and method c (the third row).
Fig. 5Measured retardance of the wave plate on the mirror during 1-h measurement.
Fig. 6(a) Schematic and photograph of the layered bulk tissue. (b) MM images of the porcine fat tissue (left) and the layered bulk tissue (right). (c) Images and (e) histogram of linear retardance of the porcine fat tissue (left, blue solid line) and the layered bulk tissue (right, red dotted line). (d) Images and (f) histogram of depolarization of the porcine fat tissue (left, blue solid line) and the layered bulk tissue (right, red dotted line). The length of the scale bar is .
Fig. 7Average values of the layered bulk tissue’s MMD parameters during TOC process.
Coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of the fitted curve of MMD parameters obtained with different acquisition times.
|
|
|
| |
| 2.6 s |
| 0.3264 | |
| 10.4 s |
| 0.3264 | |
| 20.8 s |
| 0.3262 | |
| 31.2 s |
| 0.3261 | |
| 41.6 s |
| 0.3260 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.6 s |
|
| 0.0154 |
| 10.4 s |
|
| 0.0154 |
| 20.8 s |
|
| 0.0153 |
| 31.2 s |
|
| 0.0153 |
| 41.6 s |
|
| 0.0165 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.6 s |
|
| 0.0485 |
| 10.4 s |
|
| 0.0485 |
| 20.8 s |
|
| 0.0485 |
| 31.2 s |
|
| 0.0485 |
| 41.6 s |
|
| 0.0485 |