Advertisement

Research on Spatially Adaptive High-Order Total Variation Model for Weak Fluorescence Image Restoration

  • Jin Ma (马进)
  • Teng Xue (薛腾)
  • Quanquan Shao (邵全全)
  • Jie Hu (胡洁)
  • Weiming Wang (王伟明)
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) has emerged as one of the most advanced fluorescence cell imaging techniques in the field of biomedicine. However, fluorescence cell imaging is limited by spatial blur and additive white noise induced by the excitation light. In this paper, a spatially adaptive high-order total variation (SA-HOTV) model for weak fluorescence image restoration is proposed to conduct image restoration. The method consists of two steps: optimizing the deconvolution model of the fluorescence image by the generalized Lagrange equation and alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM); using spatially adaptive parameters to balance the image fidelity and the staircase effect. Finally, an comparison of SA-HOTV model and Richardson-Lucy model with total variation (RL-TV model) indicates that the proposed method can preserve the image details ultimately, reduce the staircase effect substantially and further upgrade the quality of the restored weak fluorescence image.

Key words

confocal microscopy weak fluorescence image restoration spatially adaptive high-order total variation (SA-HOTV) 

CLC number

TP 391.4 

Document code

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    SHAH S M, CRAWSHAW J P, BOEK E S. Threedimensional imaging of porous media using confocal laser scanning microscopy [J]. Journal of Microscopy, 2017, 265(2): 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    SHIMONUKAI T, YOSHIOKA M, YANAGIMOTO H. Estimation of PSF for a shaking blurred image restoration [J]. Electronics and Communications in Japan, 2014, 97(4): 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    AGHAZADEH N, BASTANI M, SALKUVEH D K. Generalized Hermitian and skew-Hermitian splitting iterative method for image restoration [J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2015, 39(20): 6126–6138.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    CHEONG H, CHAE E, LEE E, et al. Fast image restoration for spatially varying defocus blur of imaging sensor [J]. Sensors, 2015, 15(1): 880–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    KARAKATSANIS N A, TSOUMPAS C, ZAIDI H. Quantitative PET image reconstruction employing nested expectation-maximization deconvolution for motion compensation [J]. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 2017, 60: 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    INGARAMO M, YORK A G, HOOGENDOORN E, et al. Richardson-Lucy deconvolution as a general tool for combining images with complementary strengths [J]. ChemPhysChem, 2014, 15(4): 794–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    SLAVINE N V, GUILD J, MCCOLL R W, et al. An iterative deconvolution algorithm for image recovery in clinical CT: A phantom study [J]. Physica Medica, 2015, 31(8): 903–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    LAASMAA M, VENDELIN M, PETERSON P. Application of regularized Richardson-Lucy algorithm for deconvolution of confocal microscopy images [J]. Journal of Microscopy, 2011, 243(2): 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    DEY N, BLANC-FERAUD L, ZIMMER C, et al. Richardson-Lucy algorithm with total variation regularization for 3D confocal microscope deconvolution [J]. Microscopy Research and Technique, 2006, 69(4): 260–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    LIU J, HUANG T Z, SELESNICK I W, et al. Image restoration using total variation with overlapping group sparsity[J]. Information Sciences, 2015, 295: 232–246.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    ZHOU W F, LI Q G. Poisson noise removal scheme based on fourth-order PDE by alternating minimization algorithm [C]//Abstract and Applied Analysis.[s.l.]: Hindawi Publishing Corporation, 2012: 1–14.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    FIGUEIREDOMA T, BIOUCAS-DIAS J M. Restoration of Poissonian images using alternating direction optimization [J]. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2010, 19(12): 3133–3145.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    KONG Y Y, QIAN X, FANG B, et al. Quality assessment of the deconvolution algorithms for fluorescence images [J]. Beijing Biomedical Engineering, 2014, 33(4): 374–378 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    WALLACE W, SCHAEFER L H, SWEDLOW J R. A workingperson’s guide to deconvolution in light microscopy [J]. BioTechniques, 2001, 31(5): 1076–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    WANG H B, MILLER P C. Scaled heavy-ball acceleration of the Richardson-Lucy algorithm for 3D microscopy image restoration [J]. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 2014, 23(2): 848–854.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    CHEN D Q, CHENG L Z. Spatially adapted regularization parameter selection based on the local discrepancy function for Poissonian image deblurring [J]. Inverse Problems, 2011, 28(1): 015004.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    NIELSEN F, SUN K. Guaranteed bounds on the Kullback-Leibler divergence of univariate mixtures [J]. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2016, 23(11): 1543–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shanghai Jiaotong University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jin Ma (马进)
    • 1
  • Teng Xue (薛腾)
    • 1
  • Quanquan Shao (邵全全)
    • 1
  • Jie Hu (胡洁)
    • 1
  • Weiming Wang (王伟明)
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and VibrationShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations