A method to estimate the point response function of digital x-ray detectors from edge measurements

Currently, the most accurate measurement of the detector point response can be performed with the pinhole method. The small size of the pinhole however, severely reduces the x-ray intensity output, requiring long exposures, something that can potentially reduce the x-ray tube life-cycle. Even though deriving the 1D Line Response Function (LRF)of the detector using the edge method is much more effcient, the measurement process introduces a convolution with a line, in addition to the common pixel sampling, effectively broadening the LRF. We propose a practical method to recover the detector point response function by removing the effects of the line and the pixel from a set of Edge Response Function (ERF) measurements. We use the imaging equation to study the effects of the edge,line and pixel measurements, and derive an analytical formula for the recovered detector point response function based on a gaussian mixture model. The method allows for limited recovery of asymmetries in the detector response function. We verify the method with pinhole and edge measurements of a digital flat panel detector. Monte Carlo simulations are also performed, using the MANTIS x-ray and optical photon and electron transport simulation package, for comparison. We show that the standard LRF underestimates the detector when compared with the recovered response. Our simulation results suggest that both hole methods for estimating the detector response have limitations in that they cannot completely capture rotational asymmetries or other morphological details smaller than the detector pixel size.

[1]  Miss A.O. Penney (b) , 1974, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[2]  J. Geary New approach to the LSF measurement of x-ray intensifying screens. , 1978, Medical physics.

[3]  N J Schneiders,et al.  Single-step calculation of the MTF from the ERF. , 1978, Medical physics.

[4]  M. Giger,et al.  Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 2. Noise Wiener spectrum. , 1984, Medical physics.

[5]  J C Ehrhardt Reduction of aliasing in modulation transfer function measurements. , 1986, Medical physics.

[6]  A Fenster,et al.  A method for modulation transfer function determination from edge profiles with correction for finite-element differentiation. , 1987, Medical physics.

[7]  M L Giger,et al.  Measurement of the presampling modulation transfer function of film digitizers using a curve fitting technique. , 1990, Medical physics.

[8]  J. Boone,et al.  An analytical edge spread function model for computer fitting and subsequent calculation of the LSF and MTF. , 1994, Medical physics.

[9]  E. Samei,et al.  A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. , 1998, Medical physics.

[10]  Andrew D. A. Maidment,et al.  Conditioning data for calculation of the modulation transfer function. , 2003, Medical physics.

[11]  Ulrich Neitzel,et al.  Simple method for modulation transfer function determination of digital imaging detectors from edge images , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[12]  Stephen Rudin,et al.  Study of the generalized MTF and DQE for a new microangiographic system , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[13]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  An energy- and depth-dependent model for x-ray imaging. , 2004, Medical physics.

[14]  K. Hoffmann,et al.  Generalizing the MTF and DQE to include x-ray scatter and focal spot unsharpness: application to a new microangiographic system. , 2005, Medical physics.

[15]  Aldo Badano,et al.  Three-dimensional columnar CsI model for x-ray imaging system simulations using MANTIS: validating for noise, blur, and light output , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[16]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  A practical method for measuring the H matrix of digital x-ray and cone beam CT imaging systems , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[17]  Aldo Badano,et al.  Anisotropic imaging performance in indirect x-ray imaging detectors. , 2006, Medical physics.