To bin or not to bin? The effect of CT system limiting resolution on noise and detectability

We examine the noise advantages of having a computed tomography (CT) detector whose spatial resolution is significantly better (e.g. a factor of 2) than needed for a desired resolution in the reconstructed images. The effective resolution of detectors in x-ray CT is sometimes degraded by binning cells because the small cell size and fine sampling are not needed to achieve the desired resolution (e.g. with flat panel detectors). We studied the effect of the binning process on the noise in the reconstructed images and found that while the images in the absence of noise can be made identical for the native and the binned system, for the same system MTF in the presence of noise, the binned system always results in noisier reconstructed images. The effect of the increased noise in the reconstructed images on lesion detection is scale (frequency content) dependent with a larger difference between the high resolution and binned systems for imaging fine structure (small objects). We show simulated images reconstructed with both systems for representative objects and quantify the impact of the noise on the detection of the lesions based on mathematical observers. Through both subjective assessment of the reconstructed images and the quantification using mathematical observers, we show that for a CT system where the photon noise is dominant, higher resolution in the detectors leads to better noise performance in the reconstructed images at any resolution.

[1]  Norbert J. Pelc,et al.  The noise power spectrum in computed X-ray tomography. , 1978 .

[2]  M F McNitt-Gray,et al.  Application of the noise power spectrum in modern diagnostic MDCT: part I. Measurement of noise power spectra and noise equivalent quanta , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  A. Burgess Statistically defined backgrounds: performance of a modified nonprewhitening observer model. , 1994, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[4]  Jongduk Baek,et al.  The noise power spectrum in CT with direct fan beam reconstruction. , 2010, Medical physics.

[5]  Gyula Faigel,et al.  X-Ray Holography , 1999 .

[6]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993 .

[7]  H H Barrett,et al.  Addition of a channel mechanism to the ideal-observer model. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[8]  Samta Thacker,et al.  Evaluating the impact of X-ray spectral shape on image quality in flat-panel CT breast imaging. , 2007, Medical physics.

[9]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Aperture optimization for emission imaging: effect of a spatially varying background. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[10]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Linear response theory for detectors consisting of discrete arrays. , 2000, Medical physics.

[11]  D. Jaffray,et al.  Optimization of x-ray imaging geometry (with specific application to flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography). , 2000, Medical physics.

[12]  Willi A Kalender,et al.  Presampling, algorithm factors, and noise: considerations for CT in particular and for medical imaging in general. , 2005, Medical physics.

[13]  S J Riederer,et al.  Noise Due to Photon Counting Statistics in Computed X‐Ray Tomography , 1977, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[14]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Figures of merit for detectors in digital radiography. I. Flat background and deterministic blurring. , 2004, Medical physics.

[15]  Jeffrey H Siewerdsen,et al.  Noise aliasing and the 3D NEQ of flat-panel cone-beam CT: effect of 2D/3D apertures and sampling. , 2009, Medical physics.

[16]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Classification images for simple detection and discrimination tasks in correlated noise. , 2007, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[17]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Application of information theory to the assessment of computed tomography. , 1979, Medical physics.

[18]  H H Barrett,et al.  Human- and model-observer performance in ramp-spectrum noise: effects of regularization and object variability. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[19]  Jongduk Baek,et al.  Local and global 3D noise power spectrum in cone-beam CT system with FDK reconstruction. , 2011, Medical physics.

[20]  Willi A Kalender,et al.  Interactively variable isotropic resolution in computed tomography , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  Harrison H Barrett,et al.  Figures of merit for detectors in digital radiography. II. Finite number of secondaries and structured backgrounds. , 2004, Medical physics.

[22]  N. Pelc,et al.  Effect of detector lag on CT noise power spectra. , 2011, Medical physics.

[23]  M F Kijewski,et al.  The noise power spectrum of CT images. , 1987, Physics in medicine and biology.