4.6 Article

Self-calibrated 3D differential phase contrast microscopy with optimized illumination

期刊

BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 1671-1684

出版社

Optica Publishing Group
DOI: 10.1364/BOE.450838

关键词

-

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research [N00014-17-1-2401]
  2. Berkeley Emerging Technologies Research (BETR) Center
  3. STROBE: A National Science Foundation Science & Technology Center [DMR 1548924]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a practical extension of the 3D differential phase contrast (DPC) method that does not require precise motion stage scanning, but uses a hand-scanning approach with automatic axial position calibration. The algorithm solves for the 3D refractive index of the sample through computational inverse problem. The method also incorporates optimized illumination patterns for improved performance.
3D phase imaging recovers an object's volumetric refractive index from intensity and/or holographic measurements. Partially coherent methods, such as illumination-based differential phase contrast (DPC), are particularly simple to implement in a commercial brightfield microscope. 3D DPC acquires images at multiple focus positions and with different illumination source patterns in order to reconstruct 3D refractive index. Here, we present a practical extension of the 3D DPC method that does not require a precise motion stage for scanning the focus and uses optimized illumination patterns for improved performance. The user scans the focus by hand, using the microscope's focus knob, and the algorithm self-calibrates the axial position to solve for the 3D refractive index of the sample through a computational inverse problem. We further show that the illumination patterns can be optimized by an end-to-end learning procedure. Combining these two, we demonstrate improved 3D DPC with a commercial microscope whose only hardware modification is LED array illumination. (c) 2022 Optica Publishing Group under the terms of the Optica Open Access Publishing Agreement

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

4.6
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