4.5 Article

Cross-correlation-based transverse flow measurements using optical resolution photoacoustic microscopy with a digital micromirror device

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.18.9.096004

关键词

photoacoustic microscopy; photoacoustic imaging; velocimetry

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DP1 EB016986, R01 EB008085, R01 CA134539, U54 CA136398, R01 EB010049, R01 CA157277, R01 CA159959]
  2. Microphotoacoustics, Inc.
  3. Endra, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A cross-correlation-based method is proposed to quantitatively measure transverse flow velocity using optical resolution photoacoustic (PA) microscopy enhanced with a digital micromirror device (DMD). The DMD is used to alternately deliver two spatially separated laser beams to the target. Through cross-correlation between the slow-time PA profiles measured from the two beams, the speed and direction of transverse flow are simultaneously derived from the magnitude and sign of the time shift, respectively. Transverse flows in the range of 0.50 to 6.84 mm/s are accurately measured using an aqueous suspension of 10-mu m-diameter microspheres, and the root-mean-squared measurement accuracy is quantified to be 0.22 mm/s. The flow measurements are independent of the particle size for flows in the velocity range of 0.55 to 6.49 mm/s, which was demonstrated experimentally using three different sizes of microspheres (diameters: 3, 6, and 10 mu m). The measured flow velocity follows an expected parabolic distribution along the depth direction perpendicular to the flow. Both maximum and minimum measurable velocities are investigated for varied distances between the two beams and varied total time for one measurement. This technique shows an accuracy of 0.35 mm/s at 0.3-mm depth in scattering chicken breast, making it promising for measuring flow in biological tissue. (C) 2013 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据