Open Access
Optical coherence tomography velocimetry based on decorrelation estimation of phasor pair ratios (DEPPAIR)
Author(s) -
Maximilian G. O. Gräfe,
Oleg Nadiarnykh,
Johannes F. de Boer
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
biomedical optics express
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.362
H-Index - 86
ISSN - 2156-7085
DOI - 10.1364/boe.10.005470
Subject(s) - phasor , optical coherence tomography , decorrelation , velocimetry , amplitude , optics , tomography , imaging phantom , coherence (philosophical gambling strategy) , doppler effect , physics , phase (matter) , computer science , algorithm , power (physics) , electric power system , quantum mechanics , astronomy
Quantitative velocity estimations in optical coherence tomography requires the estimation of the axial and lateral flow components. Optical coherence tomography measures the depth resolved complex field reflected from a sample. While the axial velocity component can be determined from the Doppler shift or phase shift between a pair of consecutive measurements at the same location, the estimation of the lateral component for in vivo applications is still challenging. One approach to determine lateral velocity is multiple simultaneous measurements at different angles. In another approach the lateral component can be retrieved through repeated measurements at (nearly) the same location by an analysis of the decorrelation over time. In this paper we follow the latter approach. We describe a model for the complex field changes between consecutive measurements and use it to predict the uncertainties for amplitude-based, phase-based and complex algorithms. The uncertainty of the flow estimations follows from a statistical analysis and is determined by the number of available measurements and the applied analysis method. The model is verified in phantom measurements and the dynamic range of velocity estimations is investigated. We demonstrate that phase-based and complex (phasor) based lateral flow estimation methods are superior to amplitude-based algorithms.