• Chinese Journal of Lasers
  • Vol. 49, Issue 5, 0507017 (2022)
Kang Shen1、2, Songde Liu1、2, Junhui Shi3, and Chao Tian1、2、*
Author Affiliations
  • 1School of Engineering Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China
  • 2Key Laboratory of Precision Scientific Instrumentation of Anhui Higher Education Institutes, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China
  • 3Zhejiang Lab, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 311121, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/CJL202249.0507017 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Kang Shen, Songde Liu, Junhui Shi, Chao Tian. Dual-Domain Neural Network for Sparse-View Photoacoustic Image Reconstruction[J]. Chinese Journal of Lasers, 2022, 49(5): 0507017 Copy Citation Text show less
    Network structure of DI-Net. (a) Overall schematic of DI-Net; (b) network structure of D-Net (M=512,N=768,k=16) and I-Net (M=256,N=256,k=32)
    Fig. 1. Network structure of DI-Net. (a) Overall schematic of DI-Net; (b) network structure of D-Net (M=512,N=768,k=16) and I-Net (M=256,N=256,k=32)
    Schematic of the experimental setup
    Fig. 2. Schematic of the experimental setup
    Reconstruction results of vascular phantom based on 128 projection views (All color bars stand for amplitudes of pixels on images). (a) Reference image; (b)(d) images reconstructed by FBP algorithm, Post-Unet algorithm, and DI-Net algorithm, respectively; (e)(g) difference images between the reference image and the images reconstructed by FBP, Post-Unet, and DI-Net, respectively; (d) quantitative evaluation results of the reconstruction images
    Fig. 3. Reconstruction results of vascular phantom based on 128 projection views (All color bars stand for amplitudes of pixels on images). (a) Reference image; (b)(d) images reconstructed by FBP algorithm, Post-Unet algorithm, and DI-Net algorithm, respectively; (e)(g) difference images between the reference image and the images reconstructed by FBP, Post-Unet, and DI-Net, respectively; (d) quantitative evaluation results of the reconstruction images
    Reconstruction results of vascular phantom based on 256 projection views (All color bars stand for amplitudes of pixels on images). (a) Reference image; (b)(d) images reconstructed by FBP algorithm, Post-Unet algorithm, and DI-Net algorithm, respectively; (e)(g) difference images between the reference image and the images reconstructed by FBP, Post-Unet, and DI-Net, respectively; (d) quantitative evaluation results of the reconstruction images
    Fig. 4. Reconstruction results of vascular phantom based on 256 projection views (All color bars stand for amplitudes of pixels on images). (a) Reference image; (b)(d) images reconstructed by FBP algorithm, Post-Unet algorithm, and DI-Net algorithm, respectively; (e)(g) difference images between the reference image and the images reconstructed by FBP, Post-Unet, and DI-Net, respectively; (d) quantitative evaluation results of the reconstruction images
    Quantitative evaluation results of different algorithms on the vascular test dataset (To facilitate observation, the ordinate of the boxplot in the small dashed box is stretched and separately shown in the large dashed box). (a)(d) MSE; (b)(e) PSNR; (c)(f) SSIM
    Fig. 5. Quantitative evaluation results of different algorithms on the vascular test dataset (To facilitate observation, the ordinate of the boxplot in the small dashed box is stretched and separately shown in the large dashed box). (a)(d) MSE; (b)(e) PSNR; (c)(f) SSIM
    Reconstruction results of mouse slice based on 128 projection views (All color bars stand for amplitudes of pixels on images). (a) Reference image; (b)(d) images reconstructed by FBP algorithm, Post-Unet algorithm, and DI-Net algorithm, respectively; (e)(g) difference images between the reference image and the images reconstructed by FBP, Post-Unet, and DI-Net, respectively; (d) quantitative evaluation results of the reconstruction images
    Fig. 6. Reconstruction results of mouse slice based on 128 projection views (All color bars stand for amplitudes of pixels on images). (a) Reference image; (b)(d) images reconstructed by FBP algorithm, Post-Unet algorithm, and DI-Net algorithm, respectively; (e)(g) difference images between the reference image and the images reconstructed by FBP, Post-Unet, and DI-Net, respectively; (d) quantitative evaluation results of the reconstruction images
    Reconstruction results of mouse slice based on 256 projection views (All color bars stand for amplitudes of pixels on images). (a) Reference image; (b)(d) images reconstructed by FBP algorithm, Post-Unet algorithm, and DI-Net algorithm, respectively; (e)(g) difference images between the reference image and the images reconstructed by FBP, Post-Unet, and DI-Net, respectively; (d) quantitative evaluation results of the reconstruction images
    Fig. 7. Reconstruction results of mouse slice based on 256 projection views (All color bars stand for amplitudes of pixels on images). (a) Reference image; (b)(d) images reconstructed by FBP algorithm, Post-Unet algorithm, and DI-Net algorithm, respectively; (e)(g) difference images between the reference image and the images reconstructed by FBP, Post-Unet, and DI-Net, respectively; (d) quantitative evaluation results of the reconstruction images
    Quantitative evaluation results of different algorithms on the mouse slice test dataset. (a)(d) MSE; (b)(e) PSNR; (c)(f) SSIM
    Fig. 8. Quantitative evaluation results of different algorithms on the mouse slice test dataset. (a)(d) MSE; (b)(e) PSNR; (c)(f) SSIM
    Number of viewsMethodMSEPSNR /dBSSIM
    128FBP1.880×10-223.180.4495
    Post-Unet5.005×10-439.050.9919
    DI-Net1.308×10-444.950.9974
    256FBP5.700×10-325.900.7463
    Post-Unet6.235×10-545.500.9978
    DI-Net3.640×10-547.820.9984
    Table 1. Mean value of quantitative evaluation results for different algorithms on the vascular test dataset
    Number of viewsMethodMSEPSNR /dBSSIM
    128FBP0.084828.570.5385
    Post-Unet0.011937.000.8972
    DI-Net0.007239.260.9371
    2560.0218FBP33.770.7719
    Post-Unet0.004740.380.9462
    DI-Net0.002243.520.9741
    Table 2. Mean value of quantitative evaluation results for different algorithms on the mouse slice test dataset
    Number of viewsFBPPost-UnetDI-Net
    1280.100.130.20
    2560.200.230.20
    Table 3. Comparisons of consuming time for different algorithms unit:s
    Kang Shen, Songde Liu, Junhui Shi, Chao Tian. Dual-Domain Neural Network for Sparse-View Photoacoustic Image Reconstruction[J]. Chinese Journal of Lasers, 2022, 49(5): 0507017
    Download Citation