Signal-to-Noise Ratio in Confocal Microscopes

  • Colin J. R. Sheppard
  • Xiaosong Gan
  • Min Gu
  • Maitreyee Roy

Abstract

Strictly, to obtain true confocal imaging the detector pinhole must be infinitesimally small, which would of course result in a vanishingly weak image signal. On the other hand, a very large pinhole degrades the confocal imaging effect. So in practice it is necessary to adopt some optimum diameter for the pinhole, which will depend on the design of the microscope, how it is operated, and the type of specimen. The resultant imaging performance then also depends on these various factors. In this way we can compare the performance of different designs of confocal microscope, and also compare them with widefield (WF) microscopes that have electronic image capture coupled with digital three-dimensional (3D) image restoration. In addition, we can understand how best to use the microscope in order to achieve optimum imaging performance.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Awamura, D., and Ode, T., 1992, Optical Properties of Type1 — Type 2 Microscopes, New Trends in Scanning Optical Microscopy, Okinawa, Japan.Google Scholar
  2. Benedetti, D.A., Evangelista, V., et al., 1992, Confocal line microscopy, J. Microsc. 165:119–129.Google Scholar
  3. Brakenhoff, G.J., and Visscher, K., 1992, Confocal imaging with bilateral scanning and array detectors, J. Microsc. 165:139–146.Google Scholar
  4. Cogswell, C.J., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1990, Confocal brightfield imaging techniques using an on-axis scanning optical microscope, In: Confocal Microscopy (T. Wilson, ed.), Academic Press, London, pp. 213–243.Google Scholar
  5. Cox, I.J., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1983, Digital image processing of confocal images, Image Vis. Comput. 1:52–56.Google Scholar
  6. Draaijer, A., and Houpt, P.M., 1988, A standard video-rate confocal laserscanning reflection and fluorescence microscope, Scanning 10:139–145.Google Scholar
  7. Dunn, A.K., Smithpeter, C., et al., 1996, Sources of contrast in confocal reflectance imaging, Appl. Opt. 35:3441–3446.Google Scholar
  8. Gan, X.S., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1993, Detectability: A new criterion for evaluation of the confocal microscope, Scanning 15:187–192.Google Scholar
  9. Gu, M., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1991, Effects of finite-sized detector on the OTF of confocal fluorescent microscopy, Optik 89:65–69.Google Scholar
  10. Huang, D., Swanson, E.A., et al., 1991, Optical coherence tomography, Science 254:1178–1181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Koester, C.J., 1980, A scanning mirror microscope with optical sectioning characteristics: Applications in ophthalmology, Appl. Opt. 19:1749–1757.Google Scholar
  12. Petrán˘, M., Hadravsky, M., et al., 1968, Tandem scanning reflected light microscope, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 58:661–664.Google Scholar
  13. Roy, M., and Sheppard, C.J.R., 1993, Effect of image processing on the noise properties of confocal imaging, Micron 24:623–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shannon, C.E., 1949, Communications in the presence of noise, Proc. Inst. Radio Eng. 37:10–21.Google Scholar
  15. Sheppard, C.J.R., 1991, Stray light and noise in confocal microscopy, Micron Microsc. Acta 22:239–243.Google Scholar
  16. Sheppard, C.J.R., and Cogswell, C.J., 1990, Three-dimensional imaging in confocal microscopy, In: Confocal Microscopy (T. Wilson, ed.), Academic Press, London, pp. 143–169.Google Scholar
  17. Sheppard, C.J.R., Cogswell, C.J., et al., 1991, Signal strength and noise in confocal microscopy: Factors influencing selection of an optimum detector aperture, Scanning 13:233–240.Google Scholar
  18. Sheppard, C.J.R., Gu, M., et al., 1992, Signal to noise ratio in confocal microscope systems, J. Microsc. 168:209–218.Google Scholar
  19. Sheppard, C.J.R., Hamilton, D.K., et al., 1983, Optical microscopy with extended depth of field, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 387:171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sheppard, C.J.R., and Mao, X., 1988, Confocal microscopes with slit apertures, J. Mod. Opt. 35:1169–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Slusher, R.E., Hollberg, L.W., et al., 1985, Observation of squeezed states generated by four-wave mixing in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55:2409–2412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Webb, W.W., Wells, K.S., et al., 1990, Optical Microscopy for Biology, Wiley-Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Wells, K.S., Sandison, D.R., et al., 1990, Quantitative confocal fluorescence with laser scanning confocal microscopy, In: Handbook of Biological Confocal Microscopy (J. B. Pawley, ed.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar
  24. Wilson, T., and Hamilton, D.K., 1982, Dynamic focussing in the confocal microscope, J. Microsc. 128:139–148.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin J. R. Sheppard
    • 1
  • Xiaosong Gan
    • 2
  • Min Gu
    • 2
  • Maitreyee Roy
    • 3
  1. 1.National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Swinburne UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations