Impact of PSF modelling on the convergence rate and edge behaviour of EM images in PET

EM reconstructions with point-spread-function (PSF) modelling is performed to increase the spatial resolution in PET images. These images exhibit slower initial convergence compared to reconstructions without PSF modelling. Furthermore, they exhibit more pronounced ringing around the edges of sharp features. We investigate the effect of different objects and PSF modelling on the convergence rate and edge behaviour of the EM algorithm in two stages: (i) at the initial iterations where the updates are large and (ii) at the later iterations where the updates are small. For the initial iterations, we compare the sharpness of the EM updates with and without PSF modelling. We show via simulations that the PSF modelling during the backprojection step causes smoother updates and consequently smoother images in the early stages of the EM algorithm. For the later iterations, we approximate the image as the ML image plus a perturbation term and develop an approximate update equation for the perturbation, which depends on the Hessian (H) of the log-likelihood. Based on this equation and the spectral analysis of H, we demonstrate how edges with ringing are preserved in the later stages of the algorithm and eliminated only for the case of noiseless data reconstruction with an unrealistically high number of iterations. In addition, we provide an intuitive explanation for the creation of the edge artefacts in terms of the PSF modelling during the backprojection step.

[1]  R. Leahy,et al.  High-resolution 3D Bayesian image reconstruction using the microPET small-animal scanner. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  K Thielemans,et al.  Image-based point spread function implementation in a fully 3D OSEM reconstruction algorithm for PET , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  Steven G. Ross,et al.  Application and Evaluation of a Measured Spatially Variant System Model for PET Image Reconstruction , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[4]  Gengsheng Lawrence Zeng,et al.  Unmatched projector/backprojector pairs in an iterative reconstruction algorithm , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[5]  A. Murat Tekalp,et al.  Edge-adaptive Kalman filtering for image restoration with ringing suppression , 1989, IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process..

[6]  Donald W. Wilson,et al.  Noise properties of the EM algorithm. I. Theory , 1994 .

[7]  Nam Ik Cho,et al.  Directional regularisation for constrained iterative image restoration , 2003 .

[8]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Analysis of Resolution and Noise Properties of Nonquadratically Regularized Image Reconstruction Methods for PET , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[9]  D. Snyder,et al.  The use of constraints to eliminate artifacts in maximum-likelihood image estimation for emission tomography , 1988 .

[10]  L. J. Thomas,et al.  Noise and Edge Artifacts in Maximum-Likelihood Reconstructions for Emission Tomography , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Kris Thielemans,et al.  Properties of edge artifacts in PSF-based PET reconstruction , 2010, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposuim & Medical Imaging Conference.

[12]  J. Fessler,et al.  Spatial resolution properties of penalized-likelihood image reconstruction: space-invariant tomographs , 1996, 5th IEEE EMBS International Summer School on Biomedical Imaging, 2002..

[13]  Ronald Boellaard,et al.  Partial volume corrected image derived input functions for dynamic PET brain studies: Methodology and validation for [11C]flumazenil , 2008, NeuroImage.

[14]  Vincent Israel-Jost,et al.  ACCELERATING THE TOMOGRAPHIC RECONSTRUCTION WITH A FREQUENCY ADAPTED ALGORITHM , 2007, 2007 4th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro.

[15]  Andrew J. Reader,et al.  EM algorithm system modeling by image-space techniques for PET reconstruction , 2003 .