Advertisement

Sparse-View CT Reconstruction Using Curvelet and TV-Based Regularization

  • Ali Pour YazdanpanahEmail author
  • Emma E. Regentova
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9730)

Abstract

The reconstruction from sparse-view projections is one of important problems in computed tomography limited by the availability or feasibility of a large number of projections. Total variation (TV) approaches have been introduced to improve the reconstruction quality by smoothing the variation between neighboring pixels. However, the TV-based methods for images with textures or complex shapes may generate artifacts and cause loss of details. Here, we propose a new regularization model for CT reconstruction by combining regularization methods based on TV and the curvelet transform. Combining curvelet regularizer, which is optimally sparse with better directional sensitivity than wavelet transforms with TV on the other hand will give us a unique regularization model that leads to the improvement of the reconstruction quality. The split-Bregman (augmented Lagrangian) approach has been used as a solver which makes it easy to incorporate multiple regularization terms including the one based on the multiresolution transformation, in our case curvelet transform, into optimization framework. We compare our method with the methods using only TV, wavelet, and curvelet as the regularization terms on the test phantom images. The results show that there are benefits in using the proposed combined curvelet and TV regularizer in the sparse view CT reconstruction.

Keywords

Computed tomography Sparse-view reconstruction Curvelet Total variation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NASA EPSCoR under cooperative agreement No. NNX10AR89A.

References

  1. 1.
    Brenner, D.J.J., Hall, E.J.: Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(22), 2277–2284 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oliveira, J.P., Bioucas-Dias, J.M., Figueiredo, M.A.T.: Adaptative total variation image deblurring: a majorization-minimization approach. Sig. Process. 89, 1683–1693 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck, A., Teboulle, M.: Fast gradient-based algorithms for constrained total variation image denoising and deblurring problems. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 18(11), 2419–2434 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sidky, E.Y., Pan, X.: Image reconstruction in circular cone-beam computed tomography by constrained, total-variation minimization. Phys. Med. Biol. 53(17), 4777–4807 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herman, G.T., Davidi, R.: On image reconstruction from a small number of projections. Inv. Probl. 24(4), 45011–45028 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang, J., Yu, H., Jiang, M., Wang, G.: High-order total variation minimization for interior tomography. Inv. Probl. 26(3), 035013 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Starck, J.L., Candes, E.J., Donoho, D.L.: The curvelet transform for image denoising. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 11(6), 670–684 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tai, X.C., Wu, C.: Augmented Lagrangian method, dual methods and split Bregman iteration for ROF model. In: Tai, X.-C., Mørken, K., Lysaker, M., Lie, K.-A. (eds.) Scale Space Variational Methods in Computer Vision. LNCS, vol. 5567, pp. 502–513. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldstein, T., Osher, S.: The split Bregman method for L1 regular-ized problems. SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 2(2), 323–343 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aelterman, J., Luong, H.Q., Goossens, B., Piurica, A., Philips, W.: Augmented Lagrangian based reconstruction of non-uniformly sub-Nyquist sampled MRI data. Sig. Process. 91(12), 2731–2742 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vandeghinste, B., Goossens, B., Holen, R.V., Vanhove, C., Pizurica, A., Vandenberghe, S., Staelens, S.: Iterative CT reconstruction using shearlet-based regularization. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 60(5), 3305–3317 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Afonso, M.V., Bioucas-Dias, J.M., Figueiredo, M.A.T.: An augmented lagrangian approach to the constrained optimization formulation of imaging inverse problems. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 20(3), 681–695 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu, H., Maier, A., Hornegger, J.: Iterative CT reconstruction using curvelet-based regularization. In: Meinzer, H.-P., Deserno, T.M., Handels, H., Tolxdorff, T. (eds.) Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hestenes, M.R., Stiefel, E.: Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. J. Res. Nat. Bureau Stand. 49(6), 409–436 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shepp, L.A., Logan, B.F.: Reconstructing interior head tissue from X-ray transmissions. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 21(1), 228–236 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentUniversity of NevadaLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations