Time-domain reflectance diffuse optical

tomography with Mellin-Laplace transform for

experimental detection and depth localization of
a single absorbing inclusion
Agathe Puszka,1,* Lionel Hervé,1 Anne Planat-Chrétien,1 Anne Koenig,1
Jacques Derouard,2 and Jean-Marc Dinten1
1
CEA-LETI, Minatec Campus, 17 rue des Martyrs, 38054 Grenoble Cedex 9, France
Univ. Grenoble 1 / CNRS, LIPhy UMR 5588, BP 87 F-38402 Saint Martin d'Hères, France
2

*[email protected]

Abstract: We show how to apply the Mellin-Laplace transform to process

time-resolved reflectance measurements for diffuse optical tomography. We
illustrate this method on simulated signals incorporating the main sources of
experimental noise and suggest how to fine-tune the method in order to
detect the deepest absorbing inclusions and optimize their localization in
depth, depending on the dynamic range of the measurement. To finish, we
apply this method to measurements acquired with a setup including a
femtosecond laser, photomultipliers and a time-correlated single photon
counting board. Simulations and experiments are illustrated for a probe
featuring the interfiber distance of 1.5 cm and show the potential of time-
resolved techniques for imaging absorption contrast in depth with this
geometry.
© 2012 Optical Society of America.
OCIS codes: (170.3880) Medical and biological imaging; (170.6920) Time-resolved imaging;
(170.6960)   Tomography; (170.3010) Image reconstruction techniques; (170.7050) Turbid
media; (170.4580) Optical diagnostics for medicine.

References and links

1. B.J. Tromberg, B.W. Pogue, K.D. Paulsen, A.G. Yodh, D.A. Boas, and A.E. Cerussi, “Assessing the future
of diffuse optical imaging technologies for breast cancer management,” Med. Phys. 35, 2443 (2008).
2. B. Montcel, R. Chabrier, and P. Poulet, “Time-resolved absorption and hemoglobin concentration
difference maps: A method to retrieve depth-related information on cerebral hemodynamics,” Opt. Express
14, 12271-12287 (2006).
3. J.C. Hebden, M. Varela, S. Magazov, N. Everdell, A. Gibson, J. Meek, and T. Austin, “Diffuse optical
imaging of the newborn infant brain,” in Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI)
(Barcelona, 2012), 503-505.
4. T. Austin, A.P. Gibson, G. Branco, R.Md. Yusof, S.R. Arridge, J.H. Meek, J.S. Wyatt, D.T. Delpy, and J.C.
Hebden, “Three dimensional optical imaging of blood volume and oxygenation in the neonatal brain,”
NeuroImage 31, 1426-1433 (2006).
5. J. Boutet, L. Herve, M. Debourdeau, L. Guyon, P. Peltie, J.-M. Dinten, L. Saroul, F. Duboeuf, and D. Vray,
“Bimodal ultrasound and fluorescence approach for prostate cancer diagnosis,” J. Biomed. Opt. 14, 064001
(2009).
6. J. Liu, A. Li, A.E. Cerussi, and B.J. Tromberg, “Parametric diffuse optical imaging in reflectance
geometry,” IEEE Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 16, 555-564 (2010).
7. J.C. Hebden, A. Gibson, R.M. Yusof, N. Everdell, E.M.C. Hillman, D.T. Delpy, S.R. Arridge, T. Austin,
J.H. Meek, and J.S., Wyatt, “Three-dimensional optical tomography of the premature infant brain,” Phys.
Med. Biol. 47, 4155-4166 (2002).
8. S. Del Bianco, F. Martelli, and G. Zaccanti, “Penetration depth of light re-emitted by a diffusive medium:
theoretical and experimental investigation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 4131-4144 (2002).
 9. N. Ducros, L. Hervé, A. Da Silva, J.-M. Dinten, F. Peyrin, “A comprehensive study of the use of temporal
moments in time-resolved diffuse optical tomography: part I. Theoretical material,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54,
7089-7105 (2009).
10. N. Ducros, A. Da Silva, L. Hervé, J.-M. Dinten, F. Peyrin, “A comprehensive study of the use of temporal
moments in time-resolved diffuse optical tomography: part II. Three-dimensional reconstructions,” Phys.
Med. Biol. 54, 7107-7119 (2009).
11. J. Riley, M. Hassan, V. Chernomordik, A. Gandjbakhche, “Choice of data types in time resolved
fluorescence enhanced diffuse optical tomography,” Med. Phys. 34, 4890-4900 (2007).
12. H. Zhao, F. Gao, Y. Tanikawa, Y. Yamada, “Time-resolved diffuse optical tomography and its application
to in vitro and in vivo imaging,” J. Biomed. Opt. 12 062107 (2007).
13. M. Schweiger and S.R. Arridge, “Application of temporal filters to time resolved data in optical
tomography,” Phys. Med. Biol. 44, 1699-1717 (1999).
14. F. Gao, H. Zhao, and Y. Yamada, “Improvement of image quality in diffuse optical tomography by use of
full time-resolved data,” Appl. Opt. 41, 778-791 (2002).
15. L. Hervé, A. Puszka, A. Planat-Chrétien, and J-M. Dinten, “Time-domain diffuse optical tomography
processing by using the Mellin-Laplace transform,” Appl. Opt. 51, 5978-5988 (2012).
16. A. H. Hielscher, R. E. Alcouffe, and R. L. Barbour, “Comparison of finite-difference transport and diffusion
calculations for photon migration in homogeneous and heterogeneous tissues,” Phys. Med. Biol. 43, 1285-
1302 (1998).
17. S.R. Arridge, “Photon measurement density functions, part I : analytical forms”, Appl. Opt. 34, 7395-7409
(1995).
18. E. M. C. Hillman, J. C. Hebden, F. E. W. Schmidt, S. R. Arridge, M. Schweiger, H. Dehghani, and D. T.
Delpy, “Calibration techniques and datatype extraction for time-resolved optical tomography,” Rev. Sci.
Instrum. 71, 3415-3427 (2000).
19. J.C. Hebden, F.M. Gonzalez, A. Gibson, E.M.C. Hillman, R.Md. Yusof, N. Everdell, D.T. Delpy, G.
Zaccanti, and F. Martelli, “Assessment of an in situ temporal calibration method for time-resolved optical
tomography,” J. Biomed. Opt. 8, 87-92 (2003).
20. R.Md. Yusof, J.C. Hebden, A. Gibson, N. Everdell, T. Austin, J.H. Meek, S.R. Arridge, J.S. Wyatt, and
D.T. Delpy, “Validation of the use of homogenous reference phantoms for optical tomography of the
neonatal brain,” Proc. SPIE 4955, 6-11 (2003).
21. T. Durduran, R. Choe, J.P. Culver, L. Zubkov, M.J. Holboke, J. Giammarco, B. Chance, and A.G. Yodh,
“Bulk optical properties of healthy female breast tissue,” Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 2847-2861 (2002).
22. J. Selb, A. M. Dale, and D. A. Boas, “Linear 3D reconstruction of time-domain diffuse optical imaging
differential data: improved depth localization and lateral resolution,” Opt. Express 15, 16400-16412 (2007).
23. M. Kacprzak, A. Liebert, P. Sawosz, N. Zolek, D. Milej, and R. Maniewski, “Time-resolved imaging of
fluorescent inclusions in optically turbid medium – phantom study,” Opto-Electron. Rev. 18, 37-47 (2010).
24. A. Dalla Mora, A. Tosi, F. Zappa, S. Cova, D. Contini, A. Pifferi, L. Spinelli, A. Torricelli, and R.
Cubeddu, “Fast-gated single-photon avalanche diode for wide dynamic range near infrared spectroscopy,”
IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 16, 1023-1030 (2010).

1. Introduction
Near-infrared optical measurements in biological tissues offer relevant contrast on phenomena
related to haemoglobin and other endogenous chromophores like water or lipids. Tumours
may be detected because of a tissue composition differing from surrounding healthy tissue as
in mammography [1], brain activity can be observed due to changes in oxy and deoxy-
haemoglobin concentrations [2-3], and haemorrhages can be detected in the brain of a
premature infant [4]. For some applications, detection is the final goal, but in other cases like
biopsy guidance, precise localization and quantification of the contrast are the clinically
relevant pieces of information.
In most cases for human applications, transmission measurements cannot be obtained, so
only reflectance measurements are available to retrieve information on optical contrast in
depth. For the particular case of prostate measurements, the endorectal probe has limited
distances between sources and detectors [5]. Even in cases where transmission measurements
could be possible due to anatomy, probe-like configurations enabling only reflectance
measurements with small source-detector distances can be preferred. Indeed, reflectance-only
devices are more portable, thus facilitating medical practice in applications such as
mammography [6] and offer a better control on distances between sources and detectors which
is interesting for brain applications, where the use of remote optical fibres in flexible helmets
is a cause of localization errors [7].
We therefore investigate the probe-like geometry for reflectance measurements
characterized by small distances between sources and detectors. The particular challenge of
this configuration is to retrieve information of deep layers. This information is known to be
carried by the so-called late photons, which are much less prevalent than first photons coming
back from superficial layers [8]. So, continuous-wave or frequency domain setups are not
adapted to image deep layers since the very few late photons are shadowed by the much larger
number of first photons. Time-resolved acquisition chains are intrinsically more appropriate to
detect late photons with high signal to noise ratio.
In the past years, multiple solutions have been proposed and studied for processing time-
resolved optical signals in order to maximize the use of their information content, for
fluorescence [9-11] and endogenous diffuse optical imaging [12-14]. In a previous publication
[15], we have exposed an analysis method based on the Mellin-Laplace transform to process
time-resolved signals for Diffuse Optical Tomography (DOT). We have shown that this
approach enables time-windowing of the diffusion curve and detection of deep absorbing
inclusions. This method allows to tune the sharpness of the analysis of diffusion curves, thus
provides an intermediate scheme between the moments [13] and full time-resolved analysis
[14].
In the present article, we aim at showing more precisely how the Mellin-Laplace
transform (MLT) can be applied to process experimentally acquired time-resolved signals, so
called Time-Point Spread Functions (TPSFs). For that purpose, we have developed an original
way to take into account the Instrument Response Function (IRF) by using a reference
measurement in a known diffusive medium. We also show how the choice of MLT orders
considered in the analysis is important for a proper detection and localization of an absorbing
inclusion. From this, we investigate the performance of the method in terms of detection and
localization of deep absorbing inclusions with reflectance measurements, depending on the
dynamic range of the acquired or simulated TPSFs, referred to as "signal dynamics". In this
article, the method is first illustrated on simulated signals featuring the most important sources
of experimental noise and then on real measurements.
This article is organized as follows. In the first place, the reconstruction method is
developed. Only the aspects dealing specifically with experimental signals are developed here,
the other aspects of the method being detailed in [15]. In a second chapter, the method is
illustrated on simulated signals for the "small" interfiber distance of 1.5 cm. Optimization with
respect to signal dynamics and performance in terms of detection and localization are
discussed. To finish, the applicability of this method to experimentally acquired signals is
demonstrated on measurements obtained with a time-resolved acquisition setup including a
femtosecond laser, photomultipliers and a time-correlated single photon counting (TCSPC)
board.
2. Reconstruction method
2.1 DOT with the Mellin-Laplace transform
The followed approach for processing time-domain DOT with the Mellin-Laplace transform
(MLT) is fully detailed in [15]. The method was developed considering the formalism of the
diffusion approximation to describe light propagation in a turbid medium in which the
absorption coefficient is small with respect to the reduced scattering coefficient (µ a << µs')
[16]. In this context, the perturbation of time-domain measurements due to small variations of
the absorption coefficient in the medium is expressed as follows (* is the convolution operator
with respect to the time variable):

(1)
where and are the “Green's functions” solutions of the time-resolved
diffusion equation with the source terms , i=s or d relates to the position of
the source and detector respectively, and α or β are two different media. These media differ
by the absorption coefficient: .
Eq. (1) is the fundamental relation on which iterative DOT reconstruction algorithms are
based [17].
The Mellin-Laplace transform M(p,n) as defined in Eq. (2) can be applied to a convolution
product of multiple time-resolved functions and calculated without explicit calculation of this
convolution product (Eq. 3).

(2)

where p (in ns-1) is a real positive and n is a positive or null integer.

(3)

The property of Eq. (3) enables the computation of Eq. (1) without discretization into
small time steps dt and without explicit calculation of the convolution product. The analysis
can be carried out with a tunable precision: the larger the values of p, the more pieces of
information are extracted from the diffusion curve per nanosecond. The larger the value of n,
the more late "time-windows" are included in the analysis. In [15], reconstructions of µ a maps
using this scheme were obtained considering an ideal IRF equal to a Dirac function .
2.2 Treatment of the IRF
The perturbation approach described in Eq. (1) links to variations between the Green's
functions of two media. However, the Green's functions are not accessible experimentally: the
measurements correspond to these functions convolved by the IRF. In order to approach
based on variations between measurements acquired in two media, one needs to take
into account the real IRF. Indeed, the laser sources used for DOT have a time spread (from a
few hundreds of femtoseconds to a few picoseconds), the detectors like photomultipliers tubes
(PMT) or single-photon avalanche diodes (SPAD) have typical responses in the order of a few
hundreds picoseconds full width at half maximum, and the optical fibers guiding the light
cause time-spread of the signal as well. Moreover, these behaviours can be slightly different
depending on each detector and fiber and change in time with instrumental drifts (mainly due
to temperature). The real IRF needs to be accounted for in the reconstruction scheme: it needs
to be considered separately for each couple of source and detector and calibrated as often as
possible to account for the time drifts.
State of the art. This issue has been largely studied in the past ten years and many strategies
were developed. One solution is to measure directly the IRF by placing each source in front of
each detector but it has the drawback of being time-consuming [18]. A second solution is to
calibrate in situ the IRF by measuring its reflection on the surface of the object under study
[19]. This solution was performed with success in vivo on the head of newborn infants [3].
Another solution is to use a reference phantom to calibrate the IRF, so as to work with relative
and not absolute datatypes [20]. This solution has two requirements: the reference phantom
should have the same geometry as the object to study but it should also have the same optical
properties as its background so that the use of relative datatypes is allowed.
Proposed approach. Our developed approach requires a measurement on a reference
phantom with known properties, but these properties do not have to be exactly similar to the
background of the object under study, as the analysis is not based on relative datatypes. The
novelty of the method consists in applying the MLT on a combination of the reference
measurement and the measurement of the object, without having to explicitly deconvolve the
IRF at any time.
The reconstruction process requires the TPSFs measured for all couples of sources
s and detectors d in a reference medium A and the TPSFs measured in the medium B
under study. The whole iterative process is summarized in Fig. 1.
The crucial relations and steps of this process are the following. If and are
the ideal TPSFs in media A and B for Dirac sources and for couples of sources s and detectors
d, the measured TPSFs are their time convolution with the IRF for each couple of source s and
detector d:

(4)

Due to convolution properties, the following equation can then be deduced from Eq. (4):

(5)

An iterative process can be carried out to reconstruct the absorption coefficients of

all points r in medium B (See Fig. 1) so that verifies Eq. (5). Let be the
absorption coefficient map in medium B estimated at iteration step k. With this map we solve
numerically the diffusion equation to get the Green functions . Then, the true TPSFs
with the real set of coefficients can be approached by the estimation
described in Eq. (1):

(6)

with and and respectively the theoretical

TPSFs from source s or detector d to a point r in medium B, at iteration k.
At iteration k, we can therefore link the measures and the estimated TPSFs with
variations in the absorption map by combining Eq. (5) and Eq. (6):

(7)

and get . µa is therefore non linearly reconstructed by this

iterative algorithm.
Instead of discretizing Eq. (7) with time steps dt which would be computationally intense,
we propose to calculate its MLT (Eq. (2)). By applying the time convolution properties of the
MLT (Eq. (3)) to Eq. (7), we obtain the following linear system:
 (8)

Eq. (8) has the form of a linear matrix equation Y=WX where X contains the that
yields an estimation of the map of absorption coefficients in medium B. At the
iteration step k, the MLT of the measurements in the reference medium and in the
medium to study are therefore linked to the MLT of the computed Green's functions
and in these media at this iteration, and to . Vector Y is constructed
by concatenating all MLT orders (N MLT in total) for each couple of source (N s in total) and
detector (Nd in total), its dimension is . The jacobian matrix W is
obtained similarly and has a dimension of with Nx the number of
pixels defined in the medium.

If k=1 If k>1
µBa(r) = µAa(r) µBa(r) =µBa, k(r)
Experimental acquisition or
simulation of TPSFs in:
- reference medium (A) ITERATION k
- medium to image (B)
Direct model for the
medium to image
Asd(t) reference medium Calculation of transforms
Bsd(t) medium to image (p,i) of diffusion equation in
the medium to image
µBa(r)
Calculation of transforms GsB (p,i),
of TPSFs (Mellin-Laplace GdB (p,i),
p, n
or moments) GsdB (p,i)
Calculation of:
-New measurement vector Y
Asd(p,i) and Bsd(p,i) -New sensitivity matrix W
-Variance matrix L
Direct model for the
reference medium Y, W, L, R
A
µ a(r) Calculation of transforms
(p,i) of diffusion equation in Solving inverse problem:
the reference medium LY=(LWR).X’
Gradient descent => X’
X=R.X’ with X=dµBa,k(r)
GsA (p,i), GdA (p,i), GsdA (p,i)

Right pre-conditionning R µBa, k(r)

NO
Convergence reached ?
YES

Final µa map B
µ a(r) =µBa, k(r)
in medium B

Fig. 1. Schematic view of the followed algorithm for tomographic reconstruction.

2.3 Solving the inverse problem
The inverse problem is solved as described in [15]. At each step k we minimize
using a gradient descent. R is the right preconditioner. We chose a diagonal
matrix whose elements Rmm correspond to the square of the distance between the pixel m and
the set of source and detector locations. The left preconditioner L is a diagonal matrix whose
diagonal elements estimate the variance on each order of the MLT of Y. We then obtain X by
a matrix multiplication by R: .
We notice that convergence is reached after less than 10 iterations in all the tested cases
(the criteria is that the reconstructed depth of the absorbing inclusion is stable). All the results
presented in this article are taken from the 15th iteration.
2.4 Analysis of the reconstructed images
Objective criteria are calculated from the reconstructed images in order to asses the
performance of the method. These criteria include localization of the inclusion in x and z
directions and reconstructed µa mean value.
From the reconstructed image (Fig. 2(a)), we consider as belonging to the absorbing
inclusion the pixels whose δµa value with respect to the background is at least 50% of the
maximum value of δµa in the image (Fig. 2(b)). We chose the threshold of 50 % because the
reconstructed absorbing spots are very large, due to the choice of minimizing the 2-norm. We
then calculate the x and z position of the center of mass of the absorption coefficient in this
50% spot and the mean value of the reconstructed µa in this spot (Fig. 2(b)).

µa (cm-1) x = 0 mm µa (cm-1)

0 0
0.3 µa = 0.26 cm-1 0.3
10 10

20 20 z = 14.9 mm
(mm)
(mm)

50% spot
30 30

40 40

a) 50 0.1 b) 50 0.1
-30 0 (mm) 30 -30 0 (mm) 30

Fig. 2. a) An example of 2D reconstructed map of µ a in the medium, b) The 50% spot and the
extracted parameters: x and z position of its center of mass and the mean µa in this spot.

3. Simulations
3.1 Numerical phantom and probe
Phantom. We present here results obtained with a code in two dimensions. To simulate the
studied medium, we use a two-dimensional numerical phantom of 6x5 cm, with a rectangular
mesh grid and mesh steps of 0.1 cm in x and z directions (Fig. 3). We implement the
extrapolated boundary conditions as follows: we enlarge the medium by 1 mm and impose a
null photon density at the extrapolated boundary. The absorption inclusion is a disc (diameter
set to 1 cm for the whole study) placed at the center of the medium in the x direction. Depth of
this inclusion, defined as the distance between the surface of the medium and the center of this
disc, varies from 10 to 35 mm with steps of 5 mm. The reduced scattering coefficient of the
background and the inclusion are set to μ’s = 10 cm-1 for the whole study, a typical value for
biological tissues in the near-infrared window [21]. The background of the medium is
simulating the breast with µa = 0.1 cm-1. The inclusion has the following optical properties: µ a
= 0.6 cm-1 and μ’s = 10 cm-1.
Probe. The numerical probe is similar to the experimental one (Section 4.1) and made of 2
excitation fibers and 2 detection fibers. The (x, z) coordinates in mm of the source points are
[S1 (-5, -1); S2 (+5, -1)] and of the detection points are [D1 (-10, 0); D2 (+10, 0)]. To comply
with the hypothesis of the isotropic point source, the sources are placed at 1/μ’ s = 0.1 cm
inside the medium (Fig. 3).
For the following analysis, only the couples S1D2 and S2D1, distant by 1.5 cm will be
used. These two couples will enable the localization of the inclusion in the x direction below
the probe. The inclusion being placed exactly in the middle of the two sources, the contrast
measured by the couples S1D2 and S2D1 should be similar unless noise becomes
preponderant, which should cause an error in the x localization of the inclusion. With this
compact geometry, the probe has a width of 2 cm only, includes interfiber distances of 1.5 cm
and enables localization in the x direction.

D1 S1 S2 D2
0

depth
10

20
z (mm)

30

40

50
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
x (mm)

Fig. 3. Numerical 2D phantom and probe (crosses: sources "S", circles: detectors "D", large
grey disc: absorption inclusion). The mesh is represented only in 1 cm². Only the couples S1D2
and S2D1 are used for the analysis.

3.2 Simulation of signals

Generation of TPSFs. The reference measurement is taken in the homogeneous medium
without the inclusion and the other measurement is taken in the same medium with the
inclusion. Signals are simulated by solving the time-resolved diffusion equation for Dirac
point sources with the finite-volume method in the 2D grid of the numerical phantom
(implemented in Matlab®) for the medium with and without the inclusion. One TPSF is
simulated per couple of source and detector and per depth of the inclusion (6 values of depth
in total). To insure good accuracy of the computation, the time step is dt = 3 ps, which also
corresponds to the time resolution of our TCSPC setup (Section 4.1). Thus, our simulated
signals have the same time sampling as experimental ones.
Adding noise. Real experimental signals are degraded by two main sources of noise: the Dark
Count Rate (DCR) and the photonic noise or shot noise. The DCR is due to thermal
photogeneration of charges in the detector: on the measured TPSFs, it concretely consists in
an offset present in all time channels. The value of this offset depends on the type of detector
and temperature. The term "photonic noise" describes the fact that detectable photoelectrons
show a statistical variation. Photonic noise is modelled by a Poisson distribution: its variance
is equal to the number of counted photons, so this source of noise becomes less predominant
when this number increases, i.e. when acquisition time increases.
To add these two sources of noise to our simulated TPSFs, we first convert them to a
number of photons per channel by multiplying them by a constant. This constant is calculated
for each TPSF to obtain the desired total number of photons which will define the signal
dynamics. Here, we will consider alternatively 10 6 and 108 photons per TPSF, which
correspond to realistic dynamics encountered on experimental acquisitions. An offset of 100
photons per time channels is added to simulate DCR. The last step is to add Poisson noise to
each time channel. We repeat this last step 10 times to simulate a set of 10 measurements for
each TPSF (the reference and each depth of the inclusion in the heterogeneous case), in order
to evaluate the sensitivity of our technique to photonic noise.
DCR correction. Before processing the simulated signals, we remove the offset caused by
DCR, calculated on a flat portion of the signal (between 6 and 8 ns). The corrected signals are
shown in Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b). Only time channels belonging to the diffusion curve are kept
in the analysis: channels from 0 to 2.7 ns for 106 photons and 0 to 4.3 ns for 108 photons.

104 kept in the 106

without inclusion kept in the without inclusion
analysis
with inclusion analysis
with inclusion
(2 cm) 104 (2 cm)

102

102

100 100
a) 0 3 6 9 ns b) 0 3 6 9 ns

Fig. 4. Simulated signals without the inclusion (red) and with the inclusion at 2 cm depth
(blue), a) 106 photons after DCR correction, b) 108 photons after DCR correction. For all: 1
noise realization only.

Variance. We evaluate the variance on each time channel as the number of photons per time-
channel before the DCR correction.
3.3 Results
Contrast analysis. As we considered as reference the medium to study without the inclusion,
we use the MLT orders in the reference and in the studied medium to calculate a contrast (%):

(9)

The analysis and reconstruction results presented in this article were carried out for a
given precision of MLT of p = 3 ns-1, which represents a good compromise between the pieces
of information extracted from the TPSF and the computation time.
Figure 5 depicts the contrast on the MLT orders calculated with Eq. (2) for p = 3 ns -1, for
each depth of the inclusion and one couple of source and detector, both for 10 6 and 108
photons. The results with the other couple of source and detector are not displayed as they are
identical, the inclusion being symmetric with respect to these two couples. For all values of
depth, the contrast is low for the first orders related to first photons and increases with the
following orders related to later photons. Error bars increase as well when the order increases.
Additionally, improving the signal dynamics enables to decrease the error bars: for a given
order of MLT, the error bar decreases when going from 106 to 108 photons.
Considering now each depth separately on Fig. 5, we clearly see that the deeper the
inclusion, the lower the contrast. For 10 6 photons, inclusions at depths between 10 and 25 mm
give contrast values clearly above the noise level, for orders 0 to 30 for 10, 15 and 20 mm and
only for orders 0 to 20 for 25 mm. At depths larger than 30 mm, the contrast due to the
inclusion is not statistically relevant, so we cannot expect to detect these inclusions. For 10 8
photons, the contrast is above the noise level up to 35 mm included. Figure 5 therefore
suggests that the contrast is statistically relevant on higher orders of MLT when using a higher
signal dynamics.

106 photons 108 photons

100 100
10 mm
15 mm

Contrast (%)
Contrast (%)

50 20 mm 50
25 mm
30 mm
35 mm
0 0
a) 0 10 20 30 b) 0 10 20 30

Fig. 5. Contrast on MLT orders (p = 3 ns -1) for the different depths for S1D2, a) 10 6 photons, b)
108 photons (error bars are obtained from the 10 noise realizations).

Reconstruction results. The 2D maps of µa are reconstructed on the same grid as used for the
direct model and depicted in Fig. 3. As it is not possible to present all reconstructed images,
the obtained results are summarized in Fig. 6. For each signal dynamics and each depth of the
inclusion, separated reconstructions were carried out for the 10 noise realizations. We
analyzed the resulting images with the criteria described in Section 2.4. We tested different
choices of maximum MLT orders for solving the inverse problem. The importance of this
maximum order is revealed. For a given precision p, the quality of the reconstructions is very
sensitive to the choice of the maximum orders of MLT included for solving the inverse
problem. Whereas the optimum choice enables the best detection and localization of the
inclusion allowed by the algorithm, including too few orders causes low sensitivity to deep
inclusions and strong underestimation of depth. High orders are more subject to photonic
noise so that their inclusion in the reconstruction degrades the results.
For example, as it can be seen in Fig. 6, for 10 6 photons, including only orders n = 1 to 5
in the analysis causes a large underestimation of depth from 10 to 25 mm. Adding orders up to
n = 15 yields a more accurate estimation of the depth. However, adding even more orders (up
to n = 30) degrades again the localization of the inclusion (underestimation and increased error
bars). The phenomenon is similar with 108 photons, were the optimum maximum order to
include is n = 30. These results are consistent with the analysis of the contrast graph of Fig. 5.

35 35
order 5 order 10
Reconstructed depth (mm)
Reconstructed depth (mm)

30 order 15 30 order 30
order 30 order 50
25 true 25 true

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
a) True depth (mm) b) True depth (mm)

Fig. 6. Reconstructed depth versus true depth for different choices of maximum orders of MLT included
for the reconstruction, a) 106 photons, b) 108 photons (error bars obtained from the 10 noise realizations).
 Reconstructed images for one noise realization are presented in Fig. 7. They were
obtained for the optimum configurations deduced from Fig. 6, including orders n = 1 to 15 for
106 photons and n = 1 to 30 for 108 photons. These images enable to see the limit of the
proposed method depending on the signal dynamics that is given by the number of detected
photons. In the range 10 mm to 15 mm, reconstructed images are similar for both signal
dynamics. From 20 mm to 25 mm, the inclusion is detected for both cases but the estimated
value of µa and depth are more accurate with 108 photons. From 30 mm to 35 mm, only the
larger dynamics enables to detect the inclusion but its depth is underestimated, as we could
already see in Fig. 6. Let us note as well that the deeper the inclusion, the larger the size of the
reconstructed spot and the lower the estimated µa. This underestimation of µa in depth could be
limited by improving the spatial resolution of the image, for example by multiplying the
number of sources and detectors or at the algorithm level by using priors or sparsity.

10 mm µa (cm -1) 15 mm µa (cm -1)

z
106 photons 108 photons 106 photons 108 photons
(mm) 0.8 0.3
10 10 10 10

20 20 20 20

30 30 0.1 30 30 0.1

40 40 40 40

50 50 50 50
-20 0 x (mm) 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20

106 photons 20 mm 108 photons µa (cm -1) 106 photons 25 mm 108 photons µa (cm -1)
0.2 0.15
10 10 10 10

20 20 20 20

30 30 0.1 30 30 0.1

40 40 40 40

50 50 50 50
-20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20

106 photons 30 mm 108 photons µa (cm -1) 106 photons 35 mm 108 photons µa (cm -1)
0.115 0.105
10 10 10 10

20 20 20 20

30 30 0.1 30 30 0.1

40 40 40 40

50 50 50 50
-20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20

Fig. 7. Reconstructed images of µ a for 10 photons and 10 photons (one noise realization). The
6 8

red dotted circle depicts the true position and size of the absorbing inclusion.

Figure 7 depicts the results obtained for one noise realization so it cannot reflect the
variability of results due to photonic noise. Figure 8 summarizes the performance of the
method for the two studied signal dynamics, with error bars obtained from the 10 noise
realizations. For all studied parameters (depth, x and µ a) and both signal dynamics, error bars
increase with depth. They are however always larger for 106 photons than for 108 photons. For
106 photons, the mean reconstructed depth does not increase after 25 mm: reconstructions are
driven by photonic noise and not by the presence of the inclusion. From 15 mm to deeper
positions, the depth is always better estimated with 10 8 photons than with 106 photons.
Increasing the signal dynamics enables not only to detect deeper inclusions but also to
estimate better their depth. However, from 20 mm to deeper, the depth is underestimated even
with 108 photons. This effect was already observed by Selb et al starting from the depth of 25
mm for an interfiber distance of 25 mm [22].
 10

Reconstructed depth (mm)

35

Reconstructed µa (cm-1)
106 photons 106 photons 0.7 106 photons

x localization (mm)
30 8
10 photons 5 8 108 photons
10 photons 0.6
25 true µa (inclusion)
0.5
20 0

15 0.3
-5
10
5 -10 0.1
10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35 10 15 20 25 30 35
a) True depth (mm) b) True depth (mm) c) True depth (mm)

Fig. 8. Summarized reconstruction performances for 10 6 and 108 photons for 10 noise
realizations, a) reconstructed depth, b) x localization, c) Mean reconstructed µa.

4. Experiments
4.1 Setup and protocol
The measurement setup put in place and depicted in Fig. 9 is similar to time-resolved imaging
systems suggested by multiple sources in literature, like Kacprzak et al [23].The excitation
source consists of a Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser (Chameleon, Coherent, Santa Clara, USA)
operated at 80 MHz and 770 nm injected in an optical fiber. A mean power of 5 mW is
delivered by each excitation fiber. Light is collected with two detection fibers, each of them
being directed to a photomultiplier tube (PMT) (PMC-100-20, Becker&Hickl, Germany)
connected to one channel of a TCSPC board (SPC-134, Becker&Hickl, Germany). The IRF
measured in this setup is 190 ps FWHM. Optical attenuators are placed in front of the PMT in
order to reach exactly the limit count rate of 106 photons per second.
The probe has the same geometry as described in Section 3.1. The background medium of
the optical phantom is made of Intralipid © and black ink (Rotring, Art. 591 017) to reach the
same properties as the simulated phantom (µa=0.1 cm-1 and µs'=10 cm-1). A solid absorbing
inclusion consisting of a cylinder of 8 mm in diameter and 6 cm long made of resin, TiO 2
particles and the same black ink, is placed in the background medium at the centre of S1 and
S2. Its optical properties are µa=0.6 cm-1 and µ's=10 cm-1. During the experiment, the inclusion
is moved at different depths: from 10 mm to 35 mm from the surface with steps of 5 mm.
Before and after each of these "depth" measurements a "reference" is acquired in the medium
without the inclusion. The displacement of the inclusion in the z direction is automated with a
translation stage. For each measurement ("depth" or "reference"), acquisitions of 1 second are
performed successively for the two couples of source and detector.

Computer
Photodiode
Photodiode
Sync. TCSPC
TCSPC D1
D1 D2
D2
board
board

PMT PMT
Optical
Femtosecond attenuators
Ti-Sapphire Optical
Laser switch optical
80 MHz fibers
S1 D1 S2 D2 S3
Depth D1 S1 S2 D2
µa=0.1 cm-1 ? s’=10 cm -1 µa=0.6 cm-1
µs’=10 cm-1 µs’=10 cm -1

Fig. 9. TCSPC setup, probe and optical phantom.

4.2 Results
Figure 10 shows all the "depth" and "reference" raw time-resolved signals acquired for S1D2.
Figure 10(a) shows that all the measured references are superimposed, which assesses that no
major drift was observed during the whole experiment. On the raw "depth" signals of Fig.
10(b), we can easily distinguish the measurements at the depths of 10 mm and 15 mm from
the others, which seem to be superimposed.

Number of photons Number of photons

104 104
Kept in the analysis ref 1 Kept in the analysis
ref 2 10 mm
103 15 mm
ref 3 103
20 mm
ref 4 25 mm
ref 5
30 mm
102 ref 6 102 35 mm
ref 7

101 101

100 100
a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 b) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (ns)
Time (ns)

Fig. 10. Raw signals (after DCR correction) for S1D2, a) All references, b) All
"depth" measurements (depth 1 acquired between ref 1 and 2, etc.).

Figure 11 depicts the contrasts calculated with Eq. (9) for different orders of MLT with
p = 3 ns-1, on both couples of source and detector. The error bars were calculated from the
contrasts obtained when using the reference before and after the "depth" measurement. They
indicate the sensitivity of the contrast to photonic noise. The values of contrast for the depths
of 10 mm and 15 mm are very high. The depth of 20 mm shows a visible contrast as well.
However, from 25 mm to 35 mm the contrast is null. We can notice on Fig. 11 that the
contrast profiles obtained with experimental signals are different from those obtained on
simulations with an ideal Dirac IRF (Fig. 5). This is due to the fact that the IRF of our setup
features a "tail", which tends to broaden the signals. Other types of detectors (like single-
photon avalanche diodes or hybrid PMTs), optimization of the optical path (optical fibers,
etc.) could be considered to obtain a thinner IRF. The impact of different non ideal IRF on the
reconstructions with our method is still to be studied.

S1D2 S2D1
80 80

10 mm
Contrast (%)
Contrast (%)

15 mm
40 20 mm 40
25 mm
30 mm
35 mm
0 0
0 20 MLT order 40 0 20 MLT order 40

Fig. 11. Contrast on MLT orders for different depths of the absorbing inclusion.

For each depth value, we ran two reconstructions on the same mesh grid as described in
Fig. 3. One reconstruction was realized using the reference acquired before the "depth"
measurement and another one using the reference acquired after. This was done in order to
evaluate the sensitivity of the reconstruction to photonic noise. Fig. 12 synthesizes the
obtained results (MLT parameters: p = 3 ns-1, orders n = 1 to 17).
 10 0.7

Reconstructed depth (mm)

35

Reconstructed µa (cm-1)
experiment experiment experiment
0.6

x localization (mm)
30 true 5 µa (inclusion)
0.5
25
0
20
0.3
15 -5
10
-10 0.1
a) 10 15 20 25 30 35 b) 10 15 20 25 30 35 c) 10 15 20 25 30 35
True depth (mm) True depth (mm) True depth (mm)

Fig. 12. Summarized reconstruction performances for experimental signals with an acquisition
time of 1 s, a) reconstructed depth, b) x localization, c) Mean reconstructed µa.

Figure 13 shows that from 10 mm to 20 mm, the inclusion is well detected and
reconstructed at the proper depth. The results are not influenced by photonic noise, as the
images obtained with two different reference measurements are similar. From 25 mm to 35
mm, the obtained images seem to be only resulting from photonic noise: the reconstructed µ a
is very low for all of them and the results are very different depending on the chosen
reference. These results are consistent with the order of magnitudes obtained on simulations:
with 106 photons we could see that the depth limit in detection was at 25 mm for a similar
contrast of the inclusion.

10 mm Reference after µa (cm-1) 15 mm µa (cm-1)

Reference before Reference before Reference after
0.5 0.18
10 10 10 10

20 20 20 20
0.1 0.1
30 30 30 30

40 40 40 40
50 50 50 50
-20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20

Reference before
20 mm Reference after µa (cm-1) 25 mm µa (cm-1)
Reference before Reference after
0.12 0.105
10 10 10 10

20 20 20 20
30 0.1 0.1
30 30 30

40 40 40 40

50 50 50 50
-20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20

30 mm Reference after µa (cm-1) 35 mm µa (cm-1)

Reference before Reference before Reference after
0.105 0.105
10 10 10 10

20 20 20 20
30 0.1 30 0.1
30 30
40 40 40 40
50 50 50 50
-20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20 -20 0 20

Fig. 13. Reconstructed images at iteration 15 for all depths of the inclusion, for 2 different
references. From 10 to 20 mm, the reconstructed images are similar for both references. From
25 mm to deeper, analogous reconstructions obtained with the 2 different references differ very
much: they are driven by photonic noise.

5. Discussion
The results obtained in simulations and experiments indicate that the proposed method enables
to extract the information of late photons to detect and localize deep absorbing inclusions.
This information is included in the MLT of the experimental TPSF for orders n smaller than a
given value, depending on the signal dynamics. Detection of deep inclusions is possible only
if the signal dynamics is sufficient. However, as mentioned when presenting the experimental
setup, acquisition chains like TCSPC are limited with a maximum count rate, which requires
long acquisitions in order to increase signal dynamics. It is important to keep in mind that for
small interfiber distances the detection and photon counting electronics are responsible of this
limitation and not the available source power at the collection fiber. Indeed, the maximum
count rate of 106 photons per second is reached for source power well below the safety limits
for small interfiber distances [24]. Simulations have shown that in our typical case multiplying
by 100 the number of photons (and therefore the acquisition time) enabled to extend the
maximum depth detection from 25 mm to 35 mm. This improvement in the imaged depth
range is a crucial step to make probes more useful as medical imaging tools. However, such
acquisition durations can be prohibitive when transferring this technique to the clinic. Other
acquisition modes should be considered to acquire high dynamic signals in minimum time. A
promising option is the possibility to combine TCSPC with fast-time gating of the detector to
increase the count rate of late photons as it can be done with fast-gated SPAD [24].
In this article, the analysis was carried out for a given precision of the MLT (p = 3 ns -1).
Similar results to those exposed here have also been obtained with a higher or smaller
precision of the MLT (results not shown here). As stated before, the important point is to
restrict the range of MLT orders to those that are significant depending on the signal
dynamics. However, literature suggests that a high analysis precision of the TPSF can be
interesting for imaging complex objects: Gao et al. have shown improvement of image quality
by using full-time resolved data in the cylindrical geometry [14]. Therefore, studies on more
complex objects should be carried out to conclude on the interest of using a high precision
precision.
6. Conclusion
We have shown how to apply the Mellin-Laplace transform as defined in [15] to experimental
signals and detailed how to optimize the data analysis procedure. This approach was applied
to simulated signals modelled with the main sources of experimental noise. A study on two
different signal dynamics has shown how the method should be applied in order to extract the
information from the latest photons to detect and localize deep absorbing inclusions. To finish,
we have demonstrated the application of this methodology on experimental time-resolved
signals. This study shows that this type of probe geometry could be useful to image a
biological tissue like the breast in a depth range of 0 to 20 mm or 0 to 35 mm depending on
acquisition time. This last point is crucial and currently limited by the detection and not by the
available source power. New solutions, like fast-gated SPADs associated to TCSPC could
bring a solution to this issue.
Next research steps to follow are to investigate techniques to acquire high signal
dynamics in limited acquisition time and to study more complex media.