Spatial Resolution Properties of FB and ML-EM Reconstruction Methods

We investigated the spatial resolution and quantitative properties of SPECT images reconstructed using filteredbackprojection (FB) and maximum likelihood-expectation maximization (ML-EM) algorithms. We studied ML-EM as a function of iteration number and projectorhackprojector (php) model, and FE3 as a function of filter. To quantify the image resolution for a shift-variant process we defined a local point response function (PRF). To justify the use of the local PRF to quantify resolution for nonlinear ML-EM we tested the regime over which the algorithm behaved linearly with respect to input perturbations. Using Fourier domain analogs of the local PRF we demonstrated that ML-EM with an accurate php can lead to images of better resolution than FB with a Butterworth or Metz filter or ML-EM with a php that does not fully model the imaging process. We also showed that the resolution improves with increasing MLEM iteration number, and the extent of the improvement depends on the accuracy of the php model. We conclude that the local PRF can be used to characterize spatial resolution in SPECT images, and that ML-EM offers the possibility of superior resolution, particularly if the algorithm contains a good model of the imaging process.

[1]  Benjamin M. W. Tsui,et al.  Noise properties of filtered-backprojection and ML-EM reconstructed emission tomographic images , 1992 .

[2]  S C Strother,et al.  The convergence of object dependent resolution in maximum likelihood based tomographic image reconstruction. , 1993, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  S. Strother,et al.  Practical tradeoffs between noise, quantitation, and number of iterations for maximum likelihood-based reconstructions. , 1991, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[4]  B.M.W. Tsui,et al.  A practical projector-backprojector modeling attenuation, detector response, and scatter for accurate scatter compensation in SPECT , 1991, Conference Record of the 1991 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference.

[5]  R. Carson A Maximum Likelihood Method for Region-of-Interest Evaluation in Emission Tomography , 1986, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

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

[7]  T. Pan,et al.  Numerical study of multigrid implementations of some iterative image reconstruction algorithms , 1991, Conference Record of the 1991 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference.

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

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

[10]  K. Lange,et al.  EM reconstruction algorithms for emission and transmission tomography. , 1984, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[11]  E. Tanaka,et al.  A Filtered Iterative Reconstruction Algorithm for Positron Emission Tomography , 1988 .

[12]  B. Tsui,et al.  Noise properties of the EM algorithm: II. Monte Carlo simulations. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  Charles E. Metz,et al.  A MATHEMATICAL INVESTIGATION OF RADIOISOTOPE SCAN IMAGE PROCESSING , 1969 .