A quantitative comparison of image restoration methods for confocal microscopy

In this paper, we compare the performance of three iterative methods for image restoration: the Richardson–Lucy algorithm, the iterative constrained Tikhonov–Miller algorithm (ICTM) and the Carrington algorithm. Both the ICTM and the Carrington algorithm are based on an additive Gaussian noise model, but differ in the way they incorporate the non‐negativity constraint. Under low light‐level conditions, this additive (Gaussian) noise model is a poor description of the actual photon‐limited image recording, compared with that of a Poisson process. The Richardson–Lucy algorithm is a maximum likelihood estimator for the intensity of a Poisson process. We have studied various methods for determining the regularization parameter of the ICTM and the Carrington algorithm and propose a (Gaussian) prefiltering to reduce the noise sensitivity of the Richardson–Lucy algorithm. The results of these algorithms are compared on spheres convolved with a point spread function and distorted by Poisson noise. Our simulations show that the Richardson–Lucy algorithm, with Gaussian prefiltering, produces the best result in most of the tests. Finally, we show an example of how restoration methods can improve quantitative analysis: the total amount of fluorescence inside a closed object is measured in the vicinity of another object before and after restoration.

[1]  Ernst H. K. Stelzer,et al.  Optical fluorescence microscopy in three dimensions: microtomoscopy , 1985 .

[2]  A. N. Tikhonov,et al.  Solutions of ill-posed problems , 1977 .

[3]  F S Fay,et al.  Superresolution three-dimensional images of fluorescence in cells with minimal light exposure. , 1995, Science.

[4]  G. J. Brakenhoff,et al.  3‐D image formation in high‐aperture fluorescence confocal microscopy: a numerical analysis , 1990 .

[5]  T. Holmes,et al.  Acceleration of Maximum-Likelihood Image-Restoration for Fluorescence Microscopy and Other Noncoherent Imagery , 1991, Quantum Limited Imaging and Information Processing.

[6]  W. A. Carrington.  Image restoration in 3-D microscopy with limited data , 1990, Photonics West - Lasers and Applications in Science and Engineering.

[7]  Donald L. Snyder,et al.  Random Point Processes in Time and Space , 1991 .

[8]  Nikolas P. Galatsanos,et al.  Methods for choosing the regularization parameter and estimating the noise variance in image restoration and their relation , 1992, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[9]  D. Rawlins,et al.  The point‐spread function of a confocal microscope: its measurement and use in deconvolution of 3‐D data , 1991 .

[10]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[11]  H. M. Voort,et al.  Restoration of confocal images for quantitative image analysis , 1995 .

[12]  I. Csiszár.  Why least squares and maximum entropy? An axiomatic approach to inference for linear inverse problems , 1991 .

[13]  Russell M. Mersereau,et al.  Blur identification by the method of generalized cross-validation , 1992, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[14]  R. White,et al.  Image recovery from data acquired with a charge-coupled-device camera. , 1993, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[15]  L. J. van Vliet,et al.  Grey-Scale Measurements in Multi-Dimensional Digitized Images , 1993 .

[16]  L. Shepp,et al.  A Statistical Model for Positron Emission Tomography , 1985 .

[17]  Badrinath Roysam,et al.  Light Microscopic Images Reconstructed by Maximum Likelihood Deconvolution , 1995 .

[18]  Florin Popentiu,et al.  Iterative identification and restoration of images , 1993, Comput. Graph..

[19]  L. Shepp,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[20]  Geert M. P. van Kempen,et al.  Comparing maximum likelihood estimation and constrained Tikhonov-Miller restoration , 1996 .

[21]  William H. Richardson,et al.  Bayesian-Based Iterative Method of Image Restoration , 1972 .