Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:00:11.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of the Feature Resolution of Processed Image Data via Statistical Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2021

Joseph S. Indeck ,
Jesus O. Mares Jr. ,
James P. Vitarelli  and
Kavan Hazeli
Joseph S. Indeck*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL35899, USA
Jesus O. Mares Jr.
Affiliation:
United States Air Force Research Laboratory, Munitions Directorate, 101 W. Eglin Blvd., Eglin AFB, FL32542, USA
James P. Vitarelli
Affiliation:
University of Dayton Research Institute, 300 College Park Ave., Dayton, OH45469, USA
Kavan Hazeli
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL35899, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Joseph S. Indeck, E-mail: ji0008@uah.edu
Get access

Abstract

A method is presented to determine the feature resolution of physically relevant metrics of data obtained from segmented image sets. The presented method determines the best-fit distribution curve of a dataset by analyzing a truncated portion of the data. An effective resolvable size for the metric of interest is established when including parts of the truncated dataset results in exceeding a specified error tolerance. As such, this method allows for the determination of the feature resolution regardless of the processing parameters or imaging instrumentation. Additionally, the number of missing objects that exist below the resolution of the instrumentation may be estimated. The application of the developed method was demonstrated on data obtained via 2D scanning electron microscopy of a pressed explosive material and from 3D micro X-ray computed tomography of a polymer-bonded explosive material. It was shown that the minimum number of pixels/voxels required for the accurate determination of a physically relevant metric is dependent on the metric of interest. This proposed method, utilizing the prior knowledge of the distribution of metrics of interest, was found to be well suited to determine the feature resolution in applications where large datasets can be achieved.

Keywords

feature resolutionimage processingmaterial characterizationmicroscopy data processingstatistical analysis
Type
Software and Instrumentation
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 357 - 364
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Behrooz, A, Tseng, J-C & Meganck, J. Image Resolution in microCT: Principles and Characterization of the Quantum FX and Quantum GX Systems. Technical Note, Waltham, MA: PerkinElmer, Inc., 2016.Google Scholar
Boone, JM (2001). Determination of the presampled MTF in computed tomography. Med Phys 28(3), 356–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, EA, Abraham, AV, Ramakrishnan, S & Ober, RJ (2019). Resolution limit of image analysis algorithms. Nat Commun 10, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forbes, C, Evans, M, Hastings, N & Peacock, B (2011). Statistical Distributions. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
Friedman, SN, Fung, GSK, Siewerdsen, JH & Tsui, BMW (2013). A simple approach to measure computed tomography (CT) modulation transfer function (MTF) and noise-power spectrum (NPS) using the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation phantom. Med Phys 40(5), 051907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, WH (2003). Econometric Analysis. Essex: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Loughnane, G, Groeber, M, Uchic, M, Shah, M, Srinivasan, R & Grandhi, R (2014). Modeling the effect of voxel resolution on the accuracy of phantom grain ensemble statistics. Mater Charact 90, 136–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, DB & Davidson, MW (2013). Fundamentals of Light Microscopy and Electronic Imaging, 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nelder, JA & Mead, R (1965). A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7, 308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikishkov, Y, Airoldi, L & Makeev, A (2013). Measurement of voids in composites by X-ray computed tomography. Compos Sci Technol 89, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, BM, Excobedo-Diaz, JP, Dennis-Koller, D & Cerreta, E (2012). Dimensional quantification of embedded voids or objects in three dimensions using X-ray tomography. Microsc Microanal 18, 390–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, BM & Hamilton, CE (2010). Dimensional standard for micro X-ray computed tomography. Anal Chem 82(20), 8537–8543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pavan, M, Craeghs, T, Kruth, J-P & Dewulf, W (2018). Investigating the influence of X-ray CT parameters on porosity measurement of laser sintered PA12 parts using a design-of-experiment approach. Polym Test 66, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, A (1948). Television pickup tubes and the problem of vision. In Advances in Electronics and Electonic Physics, vol. 1, Marton, L (Ed.), pp. 131–166. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rueckel, J, Stockmar, M, Pfeiffer, F & Herzen, J (2014). Spatial resolution characterization of a X-ray microCT system. Appl Radiat Isot 94, 230–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverman, BW (1982). Kernel density estimation using the fast Fourier transform. J R Stat Soc: Ser C (Appl Stat) 31(1), 93–99.Google Scholar
Silverman, BW (1986). Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sintay, SD & Rollett, AD (2012). Testing the accuracy of microstructure reconstruction in three dimensions using phantoms. Modell Simul Mater Sci Eng 20, 075005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virtanen, P, Gommers, R, Oliphant, T, Haberland, M, Reddy, T, Cournapeau, D, Burovski, E, Peterson, P, Weckesser, W, Bright, J, van der Walt, S, Brett, M, Wilson, J (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods 17(3), 261–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed