Range Condition and ML-EM Checkerboard Artifacts

The expectation maximization (EM) algorithm for the maximum likelihood (ML) image reconstruction criterion generates severe checkerboard artifacts in the presence of noise. A classical remedy is to impose an a priori constraint for a penalized ML or maximum a posteriori probability solution. The penalty reduces the checkerboard artifacts and also introduces uncertainty because a priori information is usually unknown in clinic. Recent theoretical investigation reveals that the noise can be divided into two components: one is called null-space noise and the other is range-space noise. The null-space noise can be numerically estimated using filtered backprojection (FBP) algorithm. By the FBP algorithm, the null-space noise annihilates in the reconstruction while the range-space noise propagates into the reconstructed image. The aim of this work is to investigate the relation between the null-space noise and the checkerboard artifacts in the ML-EM reconstruction from noisy projection data. Our study suggests that removing the null-space noise from the projection data could improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the projection data and, therefore, reduce the checkerboard artifacts in the ML-EM reconstructed images. This study reveals an in-depth understanding of the different noise propagations in analytical and iterative image reconstructions, which may be useful to single photon emission computed tomography, where the noise has been a major factor for image degradation. The reduction of the ML-EM checkerboard artifacts by removing the null-space noise avoids the uncertainty of using a priori penalty.

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

[2]  R. Novikov,et al.  On the range characterization for the two-dimensional attenuated x-ray transformation , 2002 .

[3]  I Ponomaryov,et al.  Correction of emission tomography data: effects of detector displacement and non-constant sensitivity , 1995 .

[4]  Ozan Öktem,et al.  Extension of separately analytic functions and applications to range characterization of the exponential Radon transform , 1998 .

[5]  Alfred K. Louis Orthogonal Function Series Expansions and the Null Space of the Radon Transform , 1984 .

[6]  H. Hart,et al.  Bayesian Image Processing in Two Dimensions , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[7]  D P Harrington,et al.  Quantitative reconstruction for myocardial perfusion SPECT: an efficient approach by depth-dependent deconvolution and matrix rotation. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[9]  G. Gindi,et al.  Noise analysis of MAP-EM algorithms for emission tomography. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  Peter Kuchment,et al.  Range conditions for the multidimensional exponential X-ray transform , 1995 .

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

[12]  C. Metz,et al.  The exponential Radon transform , 1980 .

[13]  William H. Press,et al.  Numerical recipes in C , 2002 .

[14]  Peter Kuchment,et al.  Range conditions for the exponential Radon transform , 1996 .

[15]  Xiaochuan Pan,et al.  Comments on the filtered backprojection algorithm, range conditions, and the pseudoinverse solution , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[16]  B. F. Logan,et al.  The Fourier reconstruction of a head section , 1974 .

[17]  H. Saunders,et al.  Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes (2nd Edition) , 1989 .

[18]  Jerold Warren Wallis,et al.  An optimal rotator for iterative reconstruction , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[19]  R. Novikov An inversion formula for the attenuated X-ray transformation , 2002 .

[20]  G. Herman,et al.  Algebraic reconstruction techniques (ART) for three-dimensional electron microscopy and x-ray photography. , 1970, Journal of theoretical biology.

[21]  Jeffrey A. Fessler Mean and variance of implicitly defined biased estimators (such as penalized maximum likelihood): applications to tomography , 1996, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

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

[23]  Richard M. Leahy,et al.  Resolution and noise properties of MAP reconstruction for fully 3-D PET , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[24]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

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

[26]  Leonid Kunyansky A new SPECT reconstruction algorithm based on the Novikov explicit inversion formula , 2001 .

[27]  F. Natterer The Mathematics of Computerized Tomography , 1986 .

[28]  Dmitry Shepelsky,et al.  Inverse scattering method in electromagnetic sounding theory , 1994 .

[29]  R. W. Schafer,et al.  A comparison of rotation-based methods for iterative reconstruction algorithms , 1995 .

[30]  H Barrett,et al.  Decomposition of images and objects into measurement and null components. , 1998, Optics express.

[31]  G. Gullberg THE ATTENUATED RADON TRANSFORM: THEORY AND APPLICATION IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY , 1979 .