These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparative analysis of OTF, NPS, and DQE in energy integrating and photon counting digital x-ray detectors.
    Author: Acciavatti RJ, Maidment AD.
    Journal: Med Phys; 2010 Dec; 37(12):6480-95. PubMed ID: 21302803.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: One of the benefits of photon counting (PC) detectors over energy integrating (EI) detectors is the absence of many additive noise sources, such as electronic noise and secondary quantum noise. The purpose of this work is to demonstrate that thresholding voltage gains to detect individual x rays actually generates an unexpected source of white noise in photon counters. METHODS: To distinguish the two detector types, their point spread function (PSF) is interpreted differently. The PSF of the energy integrating detector is treated as a weighting function for counting x rays, while the PSF of the photon counting detector is interpreted as a probability. Although this model ignores some subtleties of real imaging systems, such as scatter and the energy-dependent amplification of secondary quanta in indirect-converting detectors, it is useful for demonstrating fundamental differences between the two detector types. From first principles, the optical transfer function (OTF) is calculated as the continuous Fourier transform of the PSF, the noise power spectra (NPS) is determined by the discrete space Fourier transform (DSFT) of the autocovariance of signal intensity, and the detective quantum efficiency (DQE) is found from combined knowledge of the OTF and NPS. To illustrate the calculation of the transfer functions, the PSF is modeled as the convolution of a Gaussian with the product of rect functions. The Gaussian reflects the blurring of the x-ray converter, while the rect functions model the sampling of the detector. RESULTS: The transfer functions are first calculated assuming outside noise sources such as electronic noise and secondary quantum noise are negligible. It is demonstrated that while OTF is the same for two detector types possessing an equivalent PSF, a frequency-independent (i.e., "white") difference in their NPS exists such that NPS(PC) > or = NPS(EI) and hence DQE(PC) < or = DQE(EI). The necessary and sufficient condition for equality is that the PSF is a binary function given as zero or unity everywhere. In analyzing the model detector with Gaussian blurring, the difference in NPS and DQE between the two detector types is found to increase with the blurring of the x-ray converter. Ultimately, the expression for the additive white noise of the photon counter is compared against the expression for electronic noise and secondary quantum noise in an energy integrator. Thus, a method is provided to determine the average secondary quanta that the energy integrator must produce for each x ray to have superior DQE to a photon counter with the same PSF. CONCLUSIONS: This article develops analytical models of OTF, NPS, and DQE for energy integrating and photon counting digital x-ray detectors. While many subtleties of real imaging systems have not been modeled, this work is illustrative in demonstrating an additive source of white noise in photon counting detectors which has not yet been described in the literature. One benefit of this analysis is a framework for determining the average secondary quanta that an energy integrating detector must produce for each x ray to have superior DQE to competing photon counting technology.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]