Harry L Graber |
|
PhD
|
|
State University of New York Downstate Medical Center
·
Department of Pathology
|
| a |
| a |
| a |
| a |
23.53
Publications (38) View all
-
Chapter: Peripheral Vascular Noninvasive Measurements
Christoph H. Schmitz, Harry L. Graber, Randall L. Barbour04/2006; , ISBN: 9780471732877 -
SourceAvailable from: Harry L Graber
Article: Optical tomographic imaging of dynamic features of dense-scattering media.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Methods used in optical tomography have thus far proven to produce images of complex target media (e.g., tissue) having, at best, relatively modest spatial resolution. This presents a challenge in differentiating artifact from true features. Further complicating such efforts is the expectation that the optical properties of tissue for any individual are largely unknown and are likely to be quite variable due to the occurrence of natural vascular rhythms whose amplitudes are sensitive to a host of autonomic stimuli that are easily induced. We recognize, however, that rather than frustrating efforts to validate the accuracy of image features, the time-varying properties of the vasculature can be exploited to aid in such efforts, owing to the known structure-dependent frequency response of the vasculature and to the fact that hemoglobin is a principal contrast feature of the vasculature at near-infrared wavelengths. To accomplish this, it is necessary to generate a time series of image data. In this report we have tested the hypothesis that through analysis of time-series data, independent contrast features can be derived that serve to validate, at least qualitatively, the accuracy of imaging data, in effect establishing a self-referencing scheme. A significant finding is the observation that analysis of such data can produce high-contrast images that reveal features that are mainly obscured in individual image frames or in time-averaged image data. Given the central role of hemoglobin in tissue function, this finding suggests that a wealth of new features associated with vascular dynamics can be identified from the analysis of time-series image data.Journal of the Optical Society of America A 01/2002; 18(12):3018-36. · 1.56 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Harry L Graber
Article: Influence of Systematic Errors in Reference States on Image Quality and on Stability of Derived Information for dc Optical Imaging.
Y Pei, H L Graber, R L Barbour[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Optical measurements of tissue can be performed in discrete, time-averaged, and time-varying data collection modes. This information can be evaluated to yield estimates of either absolute optical coefficient values or some relative change in these values compared with a defined state. In the case of time-varying data, additional analysis can be applied to define various dynamic features. Here we have explored the accuracy with which such information can be recovered from dense scattering media using linear perturbation theory, as a function of the accuracy of the reference medium that serves as the initial guess. Within the framework of diffusion theory and a first-order solution, we have observed the following inequality regarding the sensitivity of computed measures to inaccuracy in the reference medium: Absolute measures ? relative measures > dynamic measures. In fact, the fidelity of derived dynamic measures was striking; we observed that accurate measures of dynamic behavior could be defined even if the quality of the image data from which these measures were derived was comparatively modest. In other studies we identified inaccuracy in the estimates of the reference detector values, and not to corresponding errors in the image operators, as the primary factor responsible for instability of absolute measures. The significance of these findings for practical imaging studies of tissue is discussed.Applied Optics 11/2001; 40(31):5755-69. · 1.41 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Harry L Graber
Article: Instrumentation and calibration protocol for imaging dynamic features in dense-scattering media by optical tomography.
C H Schmitz, H L Graber, H Luo, I Arif, J Hira, Y Pei, A Bluestone, S Zhong, R Andronica, I Soller, N Ramirez, S L Barbour, R L Barbour[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Instrumentation is described that is suitable for acquiring multisource, multidetector, time-series optical data at high sampling rates (up to 150 Hz) from tissues having arbitrary geometries. The design rationale, calibration protocol, and measured performance features are given for both a currently used, CCD-camera-based instrument and a new silicon-photodiode-based system under construction. Also shown are representative images that we reconstructed from data acquired in laboratory studies using the described CCD-based instrument.Applied Optics 01/2001; 39(34):6466-86. · 1.41 Impact Factor -
SourceAvailable from: Harry L Graber
Article: Improved Reconstruction Algorithm for Luminescence Optical Tomography when Background Lumiphore is Present.
J Chang, H L Graber, R L Barbour[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We examine the impact of background lumiphore on image quality in luminescence optical tomography. A modification of a previously described algorithm [J. Chang, H. L. Graber, and R. L. Barbour, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 288-299 (1997); J. Chang, H. L. Graber, and R. L. Barbour, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 44, 810-822 (1997)] that estimates the background luminescence directly from the detector readings is developed. Numerical simulations were performed to calculate the diffusion-regime limiting form of forward-problem solutions for a specific test medium. We performed image reconstructions with and without white noise added to the detector readings, using both the original and the improved versions of the algorithm. The results indicate that the original version produces unsatisfactory reconstructions when background lumiphore is present, whereas the improved algorithm yields qualitatively better images, especially for small target-to-background luminescence yield ratios.Applied Optics 07/1998; 37(16):3547-52. · 1.41 Impact Factor