Abstract

Ultrasound-modulated optical tomography of thick biological tissues was studied based on speckle-contrast detection. Speckle decorrelation was investigated with biological tissue samples of various thicknesses. Images of optically absorbing objects buried in biological tissue samples with thicknesses up to 50 mm were obtained in a transmission-detection configuration. The image contrast was more than 30%, and the spatial resolution was approximately 2 mm. In addition, a side-detection scheme along with two specific configurations were examined, and the advantages were demonstrated. Experimental results implied feasibility of applying the ultrasound-modulation technique to characterize optical properties in inhomogeneous biological tissues.

© 2003 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. L.-H. Wang, S. L. Jacques, X. Zhao, “Continuous-wave ultrasonic modulation of scattered laser light to image objects in turbid media,” Opt. Lett. 20, 629–631 (1995).
    [CrossRef]
  2. L.-H. Wang, X. Zhao, “Ultrasound-modulated optical tomography of absorbing objects buried in dense tissue-simulating turbid media,” Appl. Opt. 36, 7277–7282 (1997).
    [CrossRef]
  3. L.-H. Wang, G. Ku, “Frequency-swept ultrasound-modulated optical tomography of scattering media,” Opt. Lett. 23, 975–977 (1998).
    [CrossRef]
  4. S. Leveque, A. C. Boccara, M. Lebec, H. Saint-Jalmes, “Ultrasonic tagging of photon paths in scattering media: parallel speckle modulation processing,” Opt. Lett. 24, 181–183 (1999).
    [CrossRef]
  5. S. Leveque-Fort, “Three-dimensional acousto-optic imaging in biological tissues with parallel signal processing,” Appl. Opt. 40, 1029–1036 (2000).
    [CrossRef]
  6. G. Yao, L.-H. Wang, “Theoretical and experimental studies of ultrasound-modulated optical tomography in biological tissue,” Appl. Opt. 39, 659–664 (2000).
    [CrossRef]
  7. G. Yao, S. Jiao, L.-H. Wang, “Frequency-swept ultrasound-modulated optical tomography in biological tissue by use of parallel detection,” Opt. Lett. 25, 734–736 (2000).
    [CrossRef]
  8. J. Li, L.-H. V. Wang, “Methods for parallel-detection-based ultrasound-modulated optical tomography,” Appl. Opt. 41, 2079–2084 (2002).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. A. Lev, Z. Kotler, B. G. Sfez, “Ultrasound tagged light imaging in turbid media in a reflectance geometry,” Opt. Lett. 25, 378–380 (2000).
    [CrossRef]
  10. A. Lev, B. G. Sfez, “Direct, noninvasive detection of photon density in turbid media,” Opt. Lett. 27, 473–475 (2002).
    [CrossRef]
  11. E. Granot, A. Lev, Z. Kotler, B. G. Sfez, “Detection of inhomogeneities with ultrasound tagging of light,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 1962–1967 (2001).
    [CrossRef]
  12. S. Leveque-Fort, J. Selb, L. Pottier, A. C. Boccara, “In situ local tissue characterization and imaging by backscattering acousto-optic imaging,” Opt. Commun. 196, 127–131 (2001).
    [CrossRef]
  13. J. Selb, L. Pottier, A. C. Boccara, “Nonlinear effects in acousto-optic imaging,” Opt. Lett. 27, 918–920 (2002).
    [CrossRef]
  14. J. Li, Geng Ku, L.-H. V. Wang, “Ultrasound-modulated optical tomography of biological tissue using contrast of laser speckles,” Appl. Opt. 41, 6030–6035 (2002).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. L.-H. V. Wang, “Mechanisms of ultrasonic modulation of multiply scattered coherent light: an analytic model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (043093) 1–4 (2001).
  16. L.-H. V. Wang, “Mechanisms of ultrasonic modulation of multiply scattered coherent light: a Monte Carlo model,” Opt. Lett. 26, 1191–1193 (2001).
    [CrossRef]
  17. S. Sakadžić, L.-H. V. Wang, “Ultrasonic modulation of multiply scattered coherent light: an analytical model for anisotropically scattering media,” Phys. Rev. E 66 (026603) 1–9 (2002).
  18. American National Standards Institute, American National Standard for the Safe Use of Lasers in Health Care Facilities. Standard Z136.1-2000. (ANSI, Inc., New York, 2000).
  19. G. Marquez, L.-H. V. Wang, S. P. Lin, J. A. Schwartz, S. L. Thomsen, “Anisotropy in the absorption and scattering spectra of chicken breast tissue,” Appl. Opt. 37, 798–804 (1998).
    [CrossRef]

2002 (5)

2001 (4)

E. Granot, A. Lev, Z. Kotler, B. G. Sfez, “Detection of inhomogeneities with ultrasound tagging of light,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 1962–1967 (2001).
[CrossRef]

S. Leveque-Fort, J. Selb, L. Pottier, A. C. Boccara, “In situ local tissue characterization and imaging by backscattering acousto-optic imaging,” Opt. Commun. 196, 127–131 (2001).
[CrossRef]

L.-H. V. Wang, “Mechanisms of ultrasonic modulation of multiply scattered coherent light: an analytic model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (043093) 1–4 (2001).

L.-H. V. Wang, “Mechanisms of ultrasonic modulation of multiply scattered coherent light: a Monte Carlo model,” Opt. Lett. 26, 1191–1193 (2001).
[CrossRef]

2000 (4)

1999 (1)

1998 (2)

1997 (1)

1995 (1)

Boccara, A. C.

Granot, E.

Jacques, S. L.

Jiao, S.

Kotler, Z.

Ku, G.

Ku, Geng

Lebec, M.

Lev, A.

Leveque, S.

Leveque-Fort, S.

S. Leveque-Fort, J. Selb, L. Pottier, A. C. Boccara, “In situ local tissue characterization and imaging by backscattering acousto-optic imaging,” Opt. Commun. 196, 127–131 (2001).
[CrossRef]

S. Leveque-Fort, “Three-dimensional acousto-optic imaging in biological tissues with parallel signal processing,” Appl. Opt. 40, 1029–1036 (2000).
[CrossRef]

Li, J.

Lin, S. P.

Marquez, G.

Pottier, L.

J. Selb, L. Pottier, A. C. Boccara, “Nonlinear effects in acousto-optic imaging,” Opt. Lett. 27, 918–920 (2002).
[CrossRef]

S. Leveque-Fort, J. Selb, L. Pottier, A. C. Boccara, “In situ local tissue characterization and imaging by backscattering acousto-optic imaging,” Opt. Commun. 196, 127–131 (2001).
[CrossRef]

Saint-Jalmes, H.

Sakadžic, S.

S. Sakadžić, L.-H. V. Wang, “Ultrasonic modulation of multiply scattered coherent light: an analytical model for anisotropically scattering media,” Phys. Rev. E 66 (026603) 1–9 (2002).

Schwartz, J. A.

Selb, J.

J. Selb, L. Pottier, A. C. Boccara, “Nonlinear effects in acousto-optic imaging,” Opt. Lett. 27, 918–920 (2002).
[CrossRef]

S. Leveque-Fort, J. Selb, L. Pottier, A. C. Boccara, “In situ local tissue characterization and imaging by backscattering acousto-optic imaging,” Opt. Commun. 196, 127–131 (2001).
[CrossRef]

Sfez, B. G.

Thomsen, S. L.

Wang, L.-H.

Wang, L.-H. V.

Yao, G.

Zhao, X.

Appl. Opt. (6)

J. Opt. Soc. Am. A (1)

Opt. Commun. (1)

S. Leveque-Fort, J. Selb, L. Pottier, A. C. Boccara, “In situ local tissue characterization and imaging by backscattering acousto-optic imaging,” Opt. Commun. 196, 127–131 (2001).
[CrossRef]

Opt. Lett. (8)

Phys. Rev. E (1)

S. Sakadžić, L.-H. V. Wang, “Ultrasonic modulation of multiply scattered coherent light: an analytical model for anisotropically scattering media,” Phys. Rev. E 66 (026603) 1–9 (2002).

Phys. Rev. Lett. (1)

L.-H. V. Wang, “Mechanisms of ultrasonic modulation of multiply scattered coherent light: an analytic model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (043093) 1–4 (2001).

Other (1)

American National Standards Institute, American National Standard for the Safe Use of Lasers in Health Care Facilities. Standard Z136.1-2000. (ANSI, Inc., New York, 2000).

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (9)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Schematic of experimental setup. UT, ultrasonic transducer.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Time-dependent correlation coefficients of speckle patterns generated with chicken breast tissues of various thicknesses. The result of ground-glass sample is shown for comparison.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Speckle contrasts versus time. The results of a 20-mm-thick chicken sample, which were obtained without and with ultrasound modulation are compared.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

(a) Sketch of a 45-mm-thick chicken-breast-tissue sample. An object is buried in the middle of the sample. The relative sizes of the object, imaging region and the whole sample are shown. (b) A 2D image of the object. The image was obtained with the transmission-detection configuration.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

(a) Sketch of a 50-mm-thick chicken-breast-tissue sample. Two objects are buried in the middle of the sample. (b) A 1D image corresponding to the scan line indicated in (a), which is along the Y axis at the center of the sample. The image was obtained with the transmission-detection configuration.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Schematic of side-detection configurations. (a) The CCD camera and the transducer are located at two opposite sides of the sample. (b) The CCD camera is located at an angle of 90° to the transducer.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Two-dimensional images obtained with side-detection configurations. (a) The image was obtained with the configuration shown in Fig. 6(a). The object was buried in the middle of a chicken-breast-tissue sample (size of 40 mm × 65 mm × 50 mm). (b) The image was obtained with the configuration shown in Fig. 6(b). The object was buried 12 mm deep in the X direction in a chicken-breast-tissue sample (size of 43 mm × 65 mm × 50 mm).

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

(a) Two dimensional image of three objects of different optical absorption: 1, black-surface object; 2, green-surface object; 3, (original) white-surface object. The image was obtained with the configuration shown in Fig. 6(a). (b) A 1D image corresponding to a scan line across the objects along the Y axis.

Fig. 9
Fig. 9

Measured modulated signal distribution along the X direction inside a chicken-breast-tissue sample. Fitting the data in each segment in the distribution with the 1D model of diffusion theory permitted effective attenuation coefficients of the sample to be deducted.

Metrics