## Abstract

This paper introduces an improved diffusion model which is accurate and fast in
computation for the cases of
μ_{a}/μ’_{s} <
007 as good as the conventional diffusion model for the cases of
μ_{a}/μ’_{s} <
0.007 for surface measurement, hence more suitable than the conventional model
to be the forward model used in the image reconstruction in the diffuse optical
tomography. Deviation of the diffusion approximation (DA) on the medium surface
is first studied in the Monte Carlo (MC) diffusion hybrid model for reflectance
setup. A modification of DA and an improved MC diffusion hybrid model based on
this modified DA are introduced. Numerical tests show that for media with
relatively strong absorption the present modified diffusion approach can reduce
the surface deviation significantly in both the hybrid and pure diffusion model,
and consumes nearly no more computation time than the conventional diffusion
approach.

© 2007 Optical Society of America

## 1. Introduction

Diffuse optical tomography (DOT) [1–2] using near-infrared light can image the optical
properties of biological tissues non-invasively, therefore is used and promising in
many biomedical applications such as breast cancer detection [3] and functional brain imaging [4–5]. The image reconstruction in DOT based on the
theory of photon transport or photon density wave [6] is a non-linear ill-posed inverse problem which requires an
accurate and fast (in computation) forward model [2]. The radiance transport equation (RTE) [6] and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation [7–9] are two accurate models for light propagation
in turbid medium. However, both the two models are time-consuming hence not suitable
to be the forward model for the DOT image reconstruction. Thus, for highly
scattering media with relatively weak absorption, people use the diffusion
approximation (DA) to simplify the RTE to a more efficient (on computation) model,
i.e. the diffusion model represented by the diffusion equation (DE) [6]. Due to the DA, the DE suffers from some limitations. The
first limitation is that the medium must be scattering dominated (i.e., the ratio of
the absorption coefficient over the reduced scattering coefficient must be much less
than 1, e.g., when,
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
≤ 0.005, the deviation of the DE solution from the RTE solution is
usually smaller than 1%). Another limitation of DE is that it can not correctly
model light propagation in the “near-source region” (the
region near the incident point of the collimated light source) [10–13]. This deviation of DE in the near-source
region is referred as “near-field deviation” in the present
paper. To overcome this difficulty, hybrid models that use the diffusion model in
the far-from-source region and an accurate model in the near-source region was
proposed, e.g., Monte Carlo diffusion hybrid model (MC simulation is used in the
near-source region) [14–16] and transport diffusion hybrid model (the RTE
is used in the near-source region) [17–18].

However, in biomedical applications, it is often met that
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
< 0.007 is not satisfied. For example, in human brain near-infrared
imaging,
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
of the scalp is about 0.0095, and
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
of the gray matter is about 0.0164 [5]. For those even less scattering dominated cases, the
conventional diffusion model (no matter pure or hybrid) is not accurate enough to be
the forward model used in the DOT image reconstruction. As an example, consider a
setup of light reflectance as shown in Fig. 1, when
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
≥ 0.05, the deviation of the diffusion modeled light intensity at the
detector from the RTE modeled value is usually greater than 7%. Figure 2 shows a numerical example of the comparison between
the conventional MC diffusion hybrid model and the pure MC model. From Fig. 2 one sees that the deviation of the surface diffuse
intensity is greater than 7% when the distance from the incident point is larger
than 1.2 cm.

In this paper, we introduce an improved diffusion model which is accurate and fast in
computation for the cases of
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
< 0.07 as good as the conventional diffusion model for the cases of
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
< 0.007 for surface measurement, hence more suitable than the
conventional model to be the forward model used in the DOT image reconstruction. The
idea is presented in the following two paragraphs.

The validity of the DA relies on that the diffuse radiance in the medium be nearly isotropic. However, due to the strong anisotropy of the physical material at the interface between the medium and the air (e.g., the mismatch of the refractive indices), it is reasonable that the diffuse light near the surface of the medium is more anisotropic than the light deep inside the medium. Therefore, the deviation of the diffuse modeled light intensity from the accurate value is larger on the surface than in the deep-inside region [19–20]. This relatively larger deviation of the diffusion model on the surface is called the “surface deviation” in the present paper. Note that the measurements in DOT are usually taken on the surface of the biological medium, the surface deviation is a disadvantage for the conventional diffusion model to be the forward model for DOT.

By modifying some basic equations in the diffusing theory, we obtain an improved diffusion model. This model reduces the deviation on the surface to the level of the deviation deep inside the medium, therefore, is more accurate than the conventional diffusion model.

The accuracy of the improved model for the cases of
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
< 0.07 is as good as the conventional diffusion model for the cases of
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
< 0.007. Meanwhile, this improved model (as a forward model) consumes
nearly no more computation time than the conventional diffusion model. Therefore,
this model is more suitable than the conventional model to be the forward model for
the image reconstruction in DOT.

To modify the conventional diffusion model to a model that is suitable for the cases
of
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
< 0.07, we first study in Section 2 the accuracy behavior of the basic
equations (listed in Section 2.1) of the conventional DA when the conventional model
is applied to the cases of 0.05 ≤
*μ*
_{a}/*μ*’_{s}
< 0.07. This study shows which equations listed in Section 2.1 are more
inaccurate and should be modified to correctly model the light propagation in the
near-surface region. In Section 3.1 several empirical formulae are proposed to
modify the basic equations of the conventional DA. These modified basic equations
represent the “modified DA”. A modified MC diffusion hybrid
model (for light reflectance by turbid media) based on the modified DA is introduced
in Section 3.2 and numerical tests for the modified model are provided in Section
3.3. Supported by the numerical experiments including that shown in Section 3.3, we
give our conclusion in Section 4.

## 2. Surface deviation of the conventional diffusion approximation

#### 2.1. The conventional diffusion approximation

In the present paper, we assume the incident light is from a continuous-wave (CW) source and thus the RTE is time-independent. In the far-from-source region of a scattering dominated medium, the light propagation is completely diffusive and governed by the following diffusion equation (far-from-source DE) [6]

where *μ’ _{t}* =

*μ’*+

_{s}*μ*is the reduced transport coefficient, ${U}_{d}\left(\mathbf{r}\right)\triangleq \frac{1}{4\pi}{\int}_{4\pi}{J}_{d}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{s})d\omega $ is the average light intensity,

_{a}*J*(

_{d}**r**,

**s**) is the diffuse radiance (Wsr

^{-1}cm

^{-2}) at point r in the direction of unit vector

**s**, and Ω represents the far-from-source region of the turbid medium. Note that Eq. (1) (called the “conventional DE” in the present paper) is derived from the following two equations [6]:

where **F**
_{d} (**r**) ≜
∫_{4π}
*J _{d}*(

**r**,

**s**)

**s**d

*ω*is the diffuse flux.

On the surface of the turbid medium, the partial current boundary condition can be expressed as [21–22]

where *S* represents the surface of the medium, **n** is
the outward normal to *S*, and *A* is calculated
with the following expression [22]

where *R*(*θ*) is the Fresnel reflection
coefficient for the diffuse light hitting the medium surface (from inside) at an
angle of *θ* (with respect to **n**).
Coefficient *A* is a function of the relative refractive index
*n* of the medium and can be approximated with a polynomial
fit of *n* in practical calculation [22].

Equations (2)-(5) are all based on the following equation for an isotropic medium [6]:

However, the diffuse light is more anisotropic in the region near the surface (as compared with other regions of the medium), Therefore, Eq. (6) is relatively less accurate in the near-surface region, leading to the “surface deviation” of DA.

In the following Section 2.2, we introduce briefly three implementations of the conventional MC diffusion hybrid model as the tools to study the surface deviation.

#### 2.2. Three implementations of the conventional MC diffusion hybrid model

Figure 3 shows a simple example of a Gaussian beam of
light impinging normally on the surface of a semi-infinite turbid medium. The
denotations *V*
^{1}, *V*
_{2},
ABCD, EFGH and ÉF́ǴH́ are
specified in the caption of Fig. 3. Base on these five denotations, we define the
following denotations:

The denotations Γ_{i} (*i* = 0,1,2,3) are defined for the convenience of
describing the various boundary conditions to be used in the present paper.

In the conventional MC diffusion hybrid model for the example shown in Fig. 3, we first use MC simulation to obtain the diffuse
light distribution in the near-source region (including
*V*
_{2} and Γ_{2}). Then, the finite
element method (FEM) [23–25] based on the conventional DE [Eq. (1)] is applied only in the far-from-source region
Ω (The size of *V*
_{2} is chosen large enough
so that the light in Ω is completely diffusive.) The diffuse
intensity at point **r** in Ω decreases rapidly when the
distance between **r** and O (the incident point) increases. Volume
*V*
_{1} is chosen large enough so that the diffuse
intensity on Γ_{0} is small enough and zero boundary
condition can be applied at Γ_{0} for the DE solution.

Below we describe three implementations of the conventional MC diffusion hybrid
model (called “Conventional Hybrid I”,
“Conventional Hybrid II” and “Conventional
Hybrid III”) using three different boundary conditions on
Γ_{2}. In all these three implementations, the FEM is
used to solve Eq. (1) (combined with different boundary conditions).

The boundary conditions for Eq. (1) used in Conventional Hybrid I are

where the second equation in the above system is the so-called “partial current boundary condition” [21–22], which is derived from Eqs. (3) and (4). The third equation in system (7) is derived from Eq. (3), and term $\frac{1}{4\pi}\mathbf{n}\u2022{\mathbf{F}}_{d}\left(\mathbf{r}\in {\Gamma}_{3}\right)$ can be obtained from the MC simulation result in the near-source region.

In Conventional Hybrids II and III, we use the same boundary conditions for Eq. (1) on Γ_{0}, Γ_{1}
and Γ_{3} as in Conventional Hybrid I. For the boundary
condition on Γ_{2}, we use in Conventional Hybrid II

and use in Conventional Hybrid III

where *α*(**r** ∈
Γ_{2}) can be obtained from the MC simulation. One way to
evaluate *α*(**r** ∈
Γ_{2}) with MC simulation is to evaluate
*J _{d}*(

**r**∈ Γ

_{2},

**s**) at first, then calculate

*α*(

**r**∈ Γ

_{2}) with the definition of ${U}_{d}:\alpha \left(\mathbf{r}\in {\Gamma}_{2}\right)\phantom{\rule{.2em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{.2em}{0ex}}\frac{1}{4\pi}{\int}_{4\pi}{J}_{d}\left(\mathbf{r}\in {\Gamma}_{2},\mathbf{s}\right)\mathrm{d}\omega $. Actually, this integration can be evaluated by the MC simulation itself.

The advantage of the Dirichlet constraint (9) is that it guarantees accurate
value *α*(**r** ∈
Γ_{2}) for *U _{d}*(

**r**∈ Γ

_{2}), and hence improves the accuracy of

*U*(

_{d}**r**) for

**r**near Γ

_{2}. Note that the square ÉF́ǴH́ does not need to be much bigger than square EFGH, and square EFGH should be set a proper size. In the MC diffusion hybrid models,

*U*on Γ

_{d}_{2}is evaluated with MC simulation. The computation time for the simulation to evaluate

*U*on Γ

_{d}_{2}under a required precision increases exponentially with the distance between Γ

_{2}and the source. Empirically, this distance is set about 5/

*μ*́, i.e., the size of the “near-source region” is about 10/

_{t}*μ*́. Outside this near-source region, the near-field deviation is quite small and it is suitable to use the diffusion model instead of the MC model to save the computation time. Setting a larger size (more than 10

_{t}*μ*́) of the near-source region will consume extra time for the computation. For Conventional Hybrids I and III, one can set ÉF́ǴH́ almost identical to EFGH (i.e., Γ

_{t}_{2}reduces to the four edge lines of square EFGH).

For ordinary usage, Conventional Hybrids I-III are applied to the cases of
*μ _{a}*/

*μ*́ < 0.007 . But in the following subsection, we apply Conventional Hybrids I-III to a case of

_{s}*μ*/

_{a}*μ*́ = 0.06 and compare their solutions to study the behavior of the conventional DA in the cases of

_{s}*μ*/

_{a}*μ*́ ≥ 0.05 .

_{s}#### 2.3. Numerical study for the surface deviation

Here we study the surface deviation with a numerical example using the setup
shown in Fig. 3. The medium is assumed to be homogeneous
semi-infinite with the same optical parameters as listed in the caption of Fig. 2. Square EFGH (upper surface of
*V*
_{2}, Fig. 3) and
ÉF́ǴH́ are set by

In this example, the diffuse intensity on the medium surface is evaluated by four
different approaches: the pure MC simulation, Conventional Hybrids I, II and
III. Figure 4 shows the numerical results for the deviation
(from the result of the pure MC simulation) of the diffuse intensity on the
positive *x*-axis obtained by Conventional Hybrids I-III. The
relative deviations are defined by

where *sfUd*
_{MC}(*x*),
*sfUd*
_{Hybrid I, II, III}(*x*) are
the surface diffuse intensities at position (*x*,0,0) obtained by
the pure MC simulation and Conventional Hybrid (I, II or III), respectively.

Note that the only difference among Conventional Hybrids I-III is the boundary
condition used on Γ_{2}. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 4, the significant difference between
*DEV*
_{hybrid II}(*x*) and
*DEV*
_{hybrid III}(*x*) in region
0.4380cm ≤ *x* ≤ 0.4517cm (i.e.,
*sfUd*
_{hybrid II}(**r** ∈
Γ_{2}) is much greater than
*sfUd*
_{MC}(**r** ∈
Γ_{2}) while *sfUd*
_{hybrid
III}(**r** ∈ Γ_{2}) is close to
*sfUd*
_{MC}(**r** ∈
Γ_{2})) implies that Eq. (8) is not quite accurate, i.e., Eq. (3) for **r** near the surface is not quite
accurate in this example. Also note that *DEV*
_{hybrid
II}(*x*) is a bit worse than
*DEV*
_{hybrid I}(*x*). This indicates
that Eq. (8) is less accurate than the second equation in system (7)
[derived from Eqs. (3) and (4)]. This difference between
*DEV*
_{hybrid II}(*x*) and
*DEV*
_{hybrid I}(*x*) implies that Eq. (4) is not accurate. The underlying reason for the
inaccuracy of Eqs. (3) and (4) is the relatively strong anisotropy of the diffuse light
near the surface of the medium.

From the above analysis one sees that one way to reduce the surface deviation is to modify Eqs. (3) and (4).

## 3. The modified DA and the improved diffusion (hybrid or pure) models

#### 3.1. The modified diffusion approximation

In the present paper we propose to modify the conventional DA [described by Eq. (2)-Eq. (4)] by rewriting Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) into the following two equations:

where *η*
_{1} (**r**) and
*η*
_{2} (**r**) are modification
parameter functions introduced to reduce the surface deviation. They are usually
selected empirically. For the setup and the coordinate system shown in Fig. 3 (the source beam incidents along
*z* axis, and *x*-*y* plane is
defined on the surface of the medium), we propose that
*η*
_{1}(**r**) and
*η*
_{2}(**r**) be approximated
as:

where *c*
_{1} (*n*) and
*c*
_{2} (*n*) are constants determined
only by the refractive index *n* of the medium.

Here we give an explanation for the use of the
*η*
_{1}(**r**) and
*η*
_{2}(**r**) in Eq. (11). 1. For light reflectance setup shown in Fig. 3, the deviation of the surface measurement
evaluated by the conventional diffusion model from that by the MC model
increases almost proportionally with
*μ _{a}*/

*μ*́ [22]. This correlativity is also verified by the numerical experiments done by us. Therefore, the modification should be direct proportion to

_{s}*μ*/

_{a}*μ*́. 2. The anisotropic light becomes nearly isotropic when it travels a path length in the scattering dominated medium. Therefore, the modification should decrease rapidly with the depth from the surface. It’s natural to choose

_{s}*η*

_{1}(

**r**) to decrease exponentially with the dimensionless path length. 3. The deviation of the DE on the surface increases with the mismatch of the refractive index at the interface [19-20]. Thus

*c*

_{1}(

*n*) and

*c*

_{2}(

*n*) should be determined by the refractive index

*n*. For a fixed

*n*,

*c*

_{1}and

*c*

_{2}are two constants. Usually their values are unknown, however they are not arbitrary. The values of

*c*

_{1}and

*c*

_{2}for a fixed

*n*can be estimated from large numbers of numerical examples. In this paper, we use

*n*= 1.35. We have done hundreds of numerical comparisons between the modified DA and the pure MC simulation for various optical properties of turbid media. In each numerical experiment, we choose various pairs of values of

*c*

_{1}and

*c*

_{2}to find a pair of values which makes the modified DA consistent with the pure MC simulation best. We found that for the case of

*n*= 1.35, when we use the values

*c*

_{1}= 3.14 and

*c*

_{2}= 2.2, the modified DA is consistent with the pure MC simulation very good in most cases. Though the best pair values of

*c*

_{1}and

*c*

_{2}are unknown, they should be near the pair values of

*c*

_{1}= 3.14 and

*c*

_{2}= 2.2 which are used for the present modified DA in this paper.

#### 3.2. The improved MC diffusion hybrid model (the present hybrid model

The diffusion equation and the boundary condition used in the proposed MC diffusion hybrid model (called “Present Hybrid model” hereafter) are modified as

and

where *α*(**r** ∈
Γ_{2}) and $\frac{1}{4\pi}\mathbf{n}\u2022{\mathbf{F}}_{d}\left(\mathbf{r}\in {\Gamma}_{3}\right)$ are obtained with the MC simulation, and
*D*(**r**) is the diffusion coefficient that is
defined in the present paper by

Equation (12) is derived from Eqs. (2) and (3’). The second equation in system (13) (called
the “modified partial current boundary condition”) is
derived from Eqs. (3’) and (4’). Note that when
*η*
_{1} (**r**) = 0, The
definition of *D*(**r**) by Eq. (14) reduces to the conventional definition of the diffusion
coefficient *D*(**r**) =
[3*μ _{t}*́(

**r**)]

^{-1}(Ref. [6]) and at the same time the modified DE [Eq. (12)] reduces to the conventional DE [Eq. (1)]. Absorption-independent diffusion coefficient

*D*(

**r**) = [3

*μ*́(

_{t}**r**)]

^{-1}(corresponding to

*η*

_{1}(

**r**) =

*μ*(

_{a}**r**)/

*μ*́(

_{s}**r**)) was suggested in Refs. [22] and [26]. We modify

*D*(

**r**) by using the

*η*

_{1}(

**r**) function described in Eq. (11). The partial current boundary condition in the second equation of system (13) is modified by the

*η*

_{2}(

**r**) in Eq. (11). And in the present paper, we use the values of

*c*

_{1}= 3.14 and

*c*

_{2}= 2.2 , i.e., for light reflectance setups shown in Figs. 1 and 3, we propose the following diffusion coefficient and partial current boundary condition: (The refractive index of the medium

*n*= 1.35)

The diffusion approximation modified by Eq. (15) is referred as the “present modified
DA” hereafter in the present paper. Our numerical experiments have
verified that the present modified DA is more accurate than the DA modified with
*D*(**r**) =
[3*μ _{s}*́(

**r**)]

^{-1}in Refs. [22] and [26]. We use an example in Section 3.3 to illustrate this (Fig. 7).

In the FEM, Eqs. (12) and (13) are usually transformed into the following Galerkin
variation equation for *U _{d}*(

**r**):

where *ϕ*(**r**) is the test function
satisfying *ϕ*(**r** ∈
Γ_{0} ∪ Γ_{2}) = 0 , and
*U _{d}* (

**r**) is imposed with

*U*(

_{d}**r**∈ Γ

_{0}) = 0 and

*U*(

_{d}**r**∈ Γ

_{2}) =

*α*(

**r**∈ Γ

_{2}).

A standard procedure of the FEM [23-25] can then be implemented to discretize Eq. (16) into a linear system of equations, which can be solved by an iterative algorithm such as the conjugated gradient iteration.

Note that when *η*
_{1} (**r**)
≡ 0 and *η*
_{2} (**r**) =
0 , Eq. (16) reduces to the Galerkin variation equation in the
conventional model. This implies that the computation complexity of the forward
problem in the modified model is the same as in the conventional model.
Therefore, the modified DA approach consumes nearly no more computation time
than the conventional DA approach.

#### 3.3. Numerical tests for the modified DAs

The present modified diffusion model and the related empirical formulae (Eqs. (3’), (4’) and (11)-(15)) are obtained after hundreds of computations for
various optical properties of the turbid medium. The modification of DA [Eqs. (3’), (4’), and Eqs. (12) - (14)] includes the modification of the diffusion coefficient
[by *η*
_{1} (**r**)] and the
modification of the partial current boundary condition [by
*η*
_{2}(**r**)]. Different
functions of *η*
_{1}(**r**) and
*η*
^{2}(**r**) correspond to
different modifications of DA. We propose the modification described by Eq. (15) (the present modified DA, called “Modified
DA I” in the present paper). Refs. [22] and [26] suggested the modification described by

This modification (Eq. (17), called “Modified DA II” in the
present paper) corresponds to *η*
_{1}
(**r**) = *μ _{a}*
(

**r**)/

*μ*́ (

_{s}**r**) and

*η*

_{2}(

**r**) = 0. A modification between Modified DA I and II is

This modification (Eq. (18), called “Modified DA III” in the
present paper) corresponds to *η*
_{1}
(**r**)=
*μ _{a}*(

**r**)/

*μ*́(

_{s}**r**) and

*η*

_{2}(

**r**) = 2.2

*μ*(

_{a}**r**)/

*μ*́(

_{t}**r**).

Obviously, the modified DA can be applied in not only the hybrid model but also the pure diffusion model. In the pure diffusion model, Eq. (12) (the far-from-source DE) is replaced by the whole domain DE:

*V*

_{1}=

*V*

_{2}∪ Ω is the whole domain of the medium,

*S*(

**r**) is the diffuse source which is derived from the reduced incident radiance [6, 10, 21]. In the far-from-source region Ω,

*S*(

**r**) is very small and can be considered as zero, i.e.

*S*(

**r**∈ Ω) ≈ 0. And the boundary conditions system (13) is replaced by

To show the accuracy of the present modified DA (Modified DA I), we give several numerical examples of the comparisons among various diffusion models named in Table 1.

In all the examples the same geometry of the setup and the Cartesian coordinate
system (shown in Figs. 1 and 3) are used. The source beam incidents along
*z* axis, and *x*-*y* plane is
defined on the surface of the medium. The incident point O is at (0, 0, 0).

The first four examples (Fig. 5) are used to show the advantage of the Present
Hybrid model over the Conventional Hybrid I-III models. In each of the four
examples, the medium is homogeneous with various optical parameters, and five
different numerical approaches (the pure MC simulation, Conventional Hybrids I,
II, III, and Present Hybrid) are used to evaluate the diffuse intensity
distribution on the surface of the medium. The outputs of Conventional Hybrids
I-III and Present Hybrid are compared with the output of the MC simulation. As
shown in Fig. 5, the proposed hybrid model (Present Hybrid) is
much more accurate than Conventional Hybrid I, II and III. In the first three
examples [Figs. 5(a), 5(b) and 5(c)], Present Hybrid improves the accuracy
significantly. In the fourth example [Fig. 5 (d)], Conventional Hybrid III is almost as
accurate as Present Hybrid because of the small value of
*μ _{a}*/

*μ*́ (0.005) used in this example.

_{t}We use the fifth numerical example to show the accuracy improvement by the
present modified DA in both the pure diffusion and hybrid models. In this
example, five models are used to evaluate the diffuse intensity distribution on
the surface of a semi-infinite inhomogeneous medium: the pure MC model,
Conventional Pure diffusion model, Present Pure diffusion model (based on the
present modified DA), Conventional Hybrid III, and Present Hybrid. In this
example, the FEM is applied in the two pure diffusion models and in the
far-from-source region for the two hybrid models. The medium is inhomogeneous
and cylindrically symmetric about the *z* axis (the axis of the
incident beam) and described by

where *r* = √*x*
^{2}
+ *y*
^{2} +
*z*
^{2} ,(*z* ≥ 0). As
shown in Fig. 6, Present Hybrid model is the most accurate (the
deviation of Present Hybrid from the pure MC model is the smallest). The present
pure diffusion model (denoted by “Present Pure” in Fig. 6) is much more accurate than the conventional pure
diffusion model (denoted by “Conventional Pure” in Fig. 6), and in the far-from-source region, Present Pure
is also more accurate than Conventional Hybrid III. The large values of
*DEV*
_{Conventional, Present Pure}(*x*
≥ 0.1cm) are due to the near-field deviation of the diffusion model. Figure 6 shows that the present modified DA improves the
accuracy significantly not only for the hybrid model but also for the pure
diffusion model.

The last two examples (Fig. 7) are used to show the advantage of the present modified DA (Modified DA I) over Modified DA II (suggested in Refs. [22] and [26]) and Modified DA III. For the same medium as used in Figs. 2, 4 and 5(a), we apply Modified DA I, II and III in the pure diffusion model and the MC diffusion hybrid model described by Eqs. (12)-(14) to evaluate the diffuse intensity on the surface of the medium. The numerical results are compared with the pure MC simulation. As shown in Fig. 7, the present modified DA (Modified DA I) is more accurate than Modified DA II and III in both the pure diffusion model (Fig. 7(a), the pure diffusion model applied with the present modified DA is marked with “Present Pure”) and the MC diffusion hybrid model (Fig. 7(b), the hybrid model applied with the present modified DA is marked with “Present Hybrid”).

As a summary of this subsection, Figures 5 and 6 demonstrate the significant improvement of the present
modified DA [described by Eq. (15)] compared with the conventional DA; Fig. 5(d) is used to show that the modified DA reduces to
the conventional DA when
*μ _{a}*/

*μ*́ → 0; and Fig. 7 shows that the present modified DA is also better than other modified DAs reported before (e.g., Modified DA II which was suggested in Refs. [22] and [26]).

_{t}At last, it should be pointed out that, the computation time for the FEM to solve the modified DA problems is almost the same long as for the FEM to solve the conventional DA problems.

## 4. Conclusion

For media with relatively strong absorption, the traditional diffusion approximation (DA) is not so accurate near the medium surface. Neither a pure nor hybrid conventional DA approach can reduce this deviation on far-from-source surface. We have introduced a method with some empirical formulae to modify the conventional DA (including the partial current boundary condition) in order to reduce the surface deviation. Numerical tests have shown that the improved models (pure diffusion or MC diffusion hybrid) which employ the present modified DA are much more accurate than the conventional models. With the combined consideration that the modified DA approaches consume nearly no more computation time than the conventional DA approaches, we conclude that the present improved models are more efficient hence more suitable than the conventional models to be forward models used in the image reconstruction in DOT.

## Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China (grant No. Y104255) and the National Science Foundation of China (grant No. 60372032). One of the authors (Bin Luo) would like to thank Dr. Jun Li for his valuable discussions.

## References and links

**1. **A. Yodh and B. Chance, “Spectroscopy and imaging with
diffusing light,” Phys. Today **48**, 34–40
(1995). [CrossRef]

**2. **D. A. Boas, D. H. Brooks, E. L. Miller, C. A. Dimarzio, M. Kilmer, R. J. Gaudette, and Q. Zhang, “Imaging the body with diffuse
optical tomography,” IEEE Signal Process
Mag. 57–75 (2001). [CrossRef]

**3. **K. T. Moesta, S. Fantini, H. Jess, S. Totkas, M. A. Franceschini, M. Kaschke, and P. M. Schlag, “Constrast features of breast cancer
in frequency-domain laser scanning mammography,”
J. Biomed. Opt. **3**, 129–136
(1998) [CrossRef]

**4. **A. Villringer and B. Chance, “Non-invasive optical spectroscopy
and imaging of human brain function,”
Trends Neurosci. **20**, 435–442
(1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**5. **E. Okada and D. T. Delpy, “Near-infrared light propagation in
an adult head model. II,” Appl. Opt. **42**, 2915–2922
(2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**6. **A. Ishimaru, *Wave propagation and scattering in random
media*, (Academic Press, New York1978).

**7. **B. C. Wilson and G. Adam, “A Monte Carlo model for the
absorption and flux distributions of light in
tissue,” Med. Phys. **10**, 824–830
(1983). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**8. **L. Wang, S. L. Jacques, and L. Zhen, “MCML - Monte Carlo modeling of light
transport in multi-layered tissues,”
Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. **47**,131–146
(1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**9. **D. A. Boas, J. P. Culver, J. J. Stott, and A. K. Dunn, “Three dimensional Monte Carlo code
for photon migration through complex heterogeneous media including the adult
human head,” Opt. Express **10**,159–170
(2002). [PubMed]

**10. **R. A. J. Groenhuis, H. A. Ferwerda, and J. J. Ten Bosch, “Scattering and absorption of turbid
materials determined from reflection measurements. 1.
Theory,” Appl. Opt. **22**, 2456–2462
(1983). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**11. **A. H. Hielscher, R. E. Alcouffe, and R. L. Barbour, “Comparison of finite difference
transport and diffusion calculations for photon migration in homogeneous and
heterogeneous tissues,” Phys. Med. Biol. **43**, 1285–1302
(1998). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**12. **S. R. Arridge, “Optical tomography in medical
imaging,” Inv. Probl. **15**, R41–R93
(1999). [CrossRef]

**13. **T. Spott and L. O. Svaasand, “Collimated light sources in the
diffusion approximation,” Appl. Opt. **39**, 6453–6465
(2000). [CrossRef]

**14. **L. Wang and S. L. Jacques, “Hybrid model of Monte Carlo
simulation and diffusion theory for light reflectance by turbid
media,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A **10**, 1746–1752
(1993). [CrossRef]

**15. **G. Alexandrakis, T. J. Farrrell, and M. S. Patterson, “Monte Carlo diffusion hybrid model
for photon migration in a two-layer turbid medium in the frequency
domain,” Appl. Opt. **39**, 2235–2244
(2000). [CrossRef]

**16. **T. Hayashi, Y. Kashio, and E. Okada, “Hybrid Monte Carlo-diffusion method
for light propagation in tissue with a low-scattering
region,” Appl. Opt. **42**, 2888–2896
(2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**17. **G. Bal and Y. Maday, “Coupling of transport and diffusion
models in linear transport theory,” Math.
Model Numer. Anal. **36**, 69–86
(2002). [CrossRef]

**18. **T. Tarvainen, M. Vauhkonen, V. Kolehmainen, and J. Kaipio, “Finite element model for the coupled
radiative transfer equation and diffusion
approximation,” Int. J. Numer. Methods
Eng. , **65**,
383–405 (2006). [CrossRef]

**19. **R. C. Haskell, L. O. Svaasand, T. T. Tsay, T. C. Feng, M. S. McAdams, and B. J. Tromberg, “Boundary conditions for the
diffusion equation in radiative transfer”,
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A **11**, 2727–2741
(1994). [CrossRef]

**20. **B. Q. Chen, K. Stamnes, and J. J. Stamnes, “Validity of the diffusion
approximation in bio-optical imaging”,
Appl. Opt. **40**, 6356–6366
(2001). [CrossRef]

**21. **M. Keijzer, W. M. Star, and P. R. M. Storchi, “Optical diffusion in layered
media,” Appl. Opt. **27**, 1820–1824
(1988). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**22. **D. Contini, F. Martelli, and G. Zaccanti, ”Photon migration through a turbid
slab described by a model based on diffusion approximation. I.
Theory,” Appl. Opt. **36**, 4587–4599
(1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**23. **S. C. Brenner and L. R. Scott, *Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods,
Texts* in Appl. Math. 15, (New York, Springer-Verlag1994).

**24. **P. G. Cialet, *Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems*,
(North-Holland1978).

**25. **J. M. Jin, *Finite Element Method in Electromagnetics*,
2^{nd} ed. (New York, John Wiley & Sons2002).

**26. **T. Durduran, A. G. Yodh, B. Chance, and D. A. Boas, “Does the photon-diffusion
coefficient depend on absorption,” J.
Opt. Soc. Am. A **14**, 3358–3365
(1997). [CrossRef]