Part of the
book series (BIOANALYSIS, volume 2)
In recent years the traditional, incoherent methods of optical microscopy have been complemented by coherent imaging methods such as digital holographic microscopy and optical coherence tomography. These methods have the ability to image through distorting media, offer extended contrast enhancement modes such as polarization sensitive and Doppler imaging, and promise varying degrees of 3D imaging capability. Although these techniques might seem quite disparate both in configuration and application, they are similar in many important respects. As coherent, far-field techniques they derive information from the response of the object to a set of optical stimuli and use interferometric methods to record the phase and the amplitude of the elastically scattered field at a distant boundary. Hence, it is only the characteristics of the fields used to illuminate the object and the physical limitations imposed by the optical systems used to measure the response that differentiate the various techniques.
In this chapter, the capabilities of coherent microscopy and optical tomography are compared using linear systems theory. The techniques are characterized in terms of their 3D transfer functions in the frequency domain and their associated 3D point spread functions in the space domain. It is shown that digital holographic techniques that reconstruct images from a single, coherent recording of the scattered field only provide useful 3D information when used to investigate sparse objects such as cells or particles suspended in a transparent fluid. By synthesizing images from multiple recordings of the scattered field using different wavelengths and/or different illuminating wave fronts, the 3D imaging capability of far-field optical techniques is extended greatly. In these cases light scattered from different depths can be identified by means of the so-called “coherence gating” or “confocal gating” effects attributed to the source bandwidth and numerical aperture (NA), respectively. These are the methods of optical tomography.
Optical Coherence Tomography Point Spread Function Numerical Aperture Scattered Field Optical Coherence Tomography System
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Abbe E (1874) A contribution to the theory of the microscope and the nature of microscopic vision. Proc Bristol Nat Soc 1:200–261Google Scholar
Zernike F (1942) Phase-contrast, a new method for microscopic observation of transparent objects. Part 1. Physica 9:686–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zernike F (1942) Phase-contrast, a new method for microscopic observation of transparent objects. Part II. Physica 9:974–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minsky M (1988) Memoir on inventing the confocal scanning microscope. Scanning 10:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fercher AF, Drexler W, Hitzenberger CK, Lasser T (2003) Optical coherence tomography—principles and applications. Rep Prog Phys 66:239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang T, Yamaguchi I (1998) Three dimensional microscopy with phase-shifting digital holography. Opt Lett 23:1221–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuche E, Marquet P, Depeursinge C (1999) Simultaneous amplitude-contrast and quantitative phase-contrast microscopy by numerical reconstruction of Fresnel off-axis holograms. Appl Opt 38:6994–7001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuehn J, Montfort F, Colomb T, Rappaz B, Moratal C, Pavillon N, Marquet P, Depeursinge C (2009) Submicrometer tomography of cells by multiple wavelength digital holographic microscopy in reflection. Opt Lett 34:653–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuche E, Bevilaqua F, Depeursinge C (1999) Digital holography for quantitative phase-contrast imaging. Opt Lett 24:291–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobera J, Coupland JM (2008) Contrast enhancing techniques in digital holographic microscopy. Meas Sci Technol 19:025501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro P, Wax A, Zalevsky Z (2010) Coherent light microscopy. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
Huang D, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Schuman JS, Stinson WG, Chang W, Hee MR, Flotte T, Al E (1991) Optical coherence tomography. Science 254:1178–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresel T, Hausler G, Venzke H (1992) Three-dimensional sensing of rough surfaces by coherence radar. Appl Opt 31:919–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee BS, Strand TC (1990) Profilometry with a coherence scanning microscope. Appl Opt 29:3784–3788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt JM (1999) Optical coherence tomography (OCT): a review. IEEE J Sel Top Quant Electron 5:1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma BE, Tearney GJ (2002) Handbook of optical coherence tomography. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Drexler W, Fujimoto JG (2008) Optical coherence tomography: technology and applications. Proceedings of SPIE the international society for optical engineering, SpringerGoogle Scholar
Brezinski M (2006) Optical coherence tomography: principles and applications. Academic, Burlington, MAGoogle Scholar
Lauer V (2002) New approach to optical diffraction tomography yielding a vector equation of diffraction tomography and a novel tomographic microscope. J Microsc 205:165–176MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jericho MH, Kreuzer HJ (2010) Point source digital in-line holgraphic microscopy. In: Ferraro P, Wax A, Zalevsky Z (eds) Coherent light microscopy. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–30Google Scholar
Leith EN, Upatnieks J (1962) Reconstructed wavefronts and communication theory. J Opt Soc Am 52:1123–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wormald SA, Coupland JM (2010) On measuring 3D flow within inkjet droplet streams using a digital holographic microscope. J Modern Opt 57(9):700MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alex A, Povazay B, Hofer B, Popov S, Glittenberg C, Binder S, Drexler W (2010) Multispectral in vivo three-dimensional optical coherence tomography of human skin. J Biomed Opt 15:026025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland JM, Halliwell NA (1992) Particle image velocimetry: three-dimensional fluid velocity measurements using holographic recording and optical correlation. Appl Opt 31:1005–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar