Advertisement

Quality Assessment of Retinal Hyperspectral Images Using SURF and Intensity Features

  • Faten M’hiriEmail author
  • Claudia Chevrefils
  • Jean-Philippe Sylvestre
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10434)

Abstract

Hyperspectral (HSI) retinal imaging is an emergent modality for disease diagnosis such as diabetic retinopathy. HSI represents the retina as a 3D cube, with two spatial dimensions and one spectral, meaning that spectral signatures associated with a disease may be identified. The quality of this hypercube influences the accuracy of automatic diagnosis. Three main artifacts may limit the hypercube’s quality: parasitic contribution (e.g. blinking or ghost), uneven illumination and blurriness. We present a method for artifact detection and quality assessment using SURF features and intensity-based analysis. Quality evaluation has a rich literature in classic fundus images. However, none of these works have tackled the challenges related to HSI. Hypercubes from volunteers recruited at an eye clinic, in reflectance (48) and fluorescence (32) imaging modes, were captured using a Metabolic Hyperspectral Retinal Camera based on a tuneable light source in the visible and near infrared spectral range (450–900 nm). Compared with the ratings of two observers, our proposed method shows encouraging results in artifact detection and quality assessment.

Keywords

Hyperspectral imaging Retinal imaging Image quality evaluation Image analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Lu, G., Fei, B.: Medical hyperspectral imaging: a review. J. Biomed. Opt. 19(1), 010901 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desjardins, M., Sylvestre, J.-P., Jafari, R., Kulasekara, S., Rose, K., Trussart, R., Arbour, J.D., Hudson, C., Lesage, F.: Preliminary investigation of multispectral retinal tissue oximetry mapping using a hyperspectral retinal camera. Exp. Eye Res. 146, 330–340 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dias, J.M.P., Oliveira, C.M., da Silva Cruz, L.A.: Retinal image quality assessment using generic image quality indicators. Inf. Fusion 19, 73–90 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis, H., Russell, S., Barriga, E., Abramoff, M., Soliz, P.: Vision-based, real-time retinal image quality assessment. In: CBMS 2009. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Veiga, D., Pereira, C., Ferreira, M., Gonçalves, L., Monteiro, J.: Quality evaluation of digital fundus images through combined measures. J. Med. Imaging 1(1), 014001 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tennakoon, R., Mahapatra, D., Roy, P., Sedai, S., Garnavi, R.: Image quality classification for DR screening using convolutional neural networks. In: OMIA Held in Conjunction with MICCAI, Greece (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bay, H., Ess, A., Tuytelaars, T., Van Gool, L.: Speeded-up robust features (SURF). Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 110(3), 346–359 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faten M’hiri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Claudia Chevrefils
    • 1
  • Jean-Philippe Sylvestre
    • 1
  1. 1.Optina DiagnosticsMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations