4.5 Article

Measurement of sample stage error motions in cone-beam X-ray computed tomography instruments by minimization of reprojection errors

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.precisioneng.2020.09.004

关键词

-

资金

  1. Flemish Research Council (FWO) [GA S004217N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In X-ray computed tomography, reconstruction algorithms rely on precise instrument alignment of X-ray source, sample stage, and detector. This study introduces a method using object-based measurements to determine error motions of the sample stage manipulator. Results show alignment with previous reference measurements, even though sensitivity decreases at lower imaging magnifications.
Reconstruction algorithms in X-ray computed tomography assume a particular geometrical alignment of the instrument components: X-ray source, sample stage, and detector. Motion errors and misalignments in the actual instrument contribute to errors in the reconstruction. In previous work, we presented an object-based procedure to measure the instrument geometrical alignment at a single position of the sample rotation stage along its linear translation axes. Here, we present an object-based method to determine error motions of the sample stage manipulator in cone-beam X-ray computed tomography instruments. The proposed method is applied with a reference object comprising calibrated sphere center positions to determine error motions of the stage as it is translated along the nominal magnification axis from the X-ray source towards the detector. Results agree with previous reference measurements performed using laser interferometers and electronic levels, albeit at a loss of sensitivity at lower imaging magnifications when the projected object occupies progressively smaller areas of the detector image. To compensate for the lower sensitivity, we propose a solution based on having a limited set of reference objects of various sizes to be used along the entire magnification range of the sample stage.

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