OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Andrew M. Weiner
  • Vol. 21, Iss. 12 — Jun. 17, 2013
  • pp: 14152–14158
« Show journal navigation

Target detection in turbid medium using polarization-based range-gated technology

Jinge Guan and Jingping Zhu  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 21, Issue 12, pp. 14152-14158 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.21.014152


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (841 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Range-gated technology is well known for its good reliability, large field of view (FOV) and low cost in target detection through scattering or turbid medium. However, the tail-gating technology suffers from low signal-to-noise ratio in high turbidity levels due to superposition of photons multiply scattered from the medium and that reflected from the target. In this paper, polarization properties of multiply scattered photons emerging from the turbid medium are studied. Results demonstrate that diffusive photons are almost completely depolarized with no diattenuation and retardance. We combined the tail-gated technology with polarization detection method to effectively image in high level of turbidity. This approach showed about two times enhancement in image contrast as compared with the conventional range-gated technology.

© 2013 OSA

1. Introduction

Optical sensing methods are increasingly used to image object embedded in turbid medium, such as fog, cloud, underwater, and biological tissue. It should be noted that when photons propagate through turbid medium, the process of absorption and scattering caused by medium can weaken the intensity and randomize the phase, propagating direction and polarization state of the transmitted light. As a result, optical scattering and absorption in turbid medium could seriously degrade the signal-to-noise ratio for target detection. Many useful optical methods, such as range-gated technology [1

1. A. Swartz, “Laser range gated underwater imaging advances,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 19, 722–727 (1994).

3

3. H. Li, X. Wang, T. Bai, W. Jin, Y. Huang, and K. Ding, “Speckle noise suppression of range-gated underwater imaging system,” Proc. SPIE 7443, 74432A, 74432A-8 (2009). [CrossRef]

], frequency-domain method [4

4. K. D. Paulsen and H. Jiang, “Enhanced frequency-domain optical image reconstruction in tissues through total-variation minimization,” Appl. Opt. 35(19), 3447–3458 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,5

5. A. T. N. Kumar, S. B. Raymond, B. J. Bacskai, and D. A. Boas, “Comparison of frequency-domain and time-domain fluorescence lifetime tomography,” Opt. Lett. 33(5), 470–472 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] and polarized detection technology [6

6. M. P. Rowe, E. N. Pugh Jr, J. S. Tyo, and N. Engheta, “Polarization-difference imaging: a biologically inspired technique for observation through scattering media,” Opt. Lett. 20(6), 608–610 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10

10. D. A. Miller and E. L. Dereniak, “Selective polarization imager for contrast enhancements in remote scattering media,” Appl. Opt. 51(18), 4092–4102 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], have been developed to overcome this problem. Range-gated technology is well known for its good reliability, large field of view (FOV) and low cost in target detection through scattering or turbid medium [1

1. A. Swartz, “Laser range gated underwater imaging advances,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 19, 722–727 (1994).

,2

2. C. Tan, A. Sluzek, and G. Seet, “Model of gated imaging in turbid media,” Opt. Eng. 44(11), 116002 (2005). [CrossRef]

]. It could be able to realize glimmer imaging and suppress backscattering noise effectively. However, the latest research shows that the imaging quality improvement made by tail-gated technology is limited in higher turbidity [11

11. M. E. Zevallos, L. S. K. Gayen, M. Alrubaiee, and R. R. Alfano, “Time-gated backscattered ballistic light imaging of objects in turbid water,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 86(01115), 1–3 (2005).

,12

12. C. Tan, G. Seet, A. Sluzek, X. Wang, C. T. Yuen, C. Y. Fam, and H. Y. Wong, “Scattering noise estimation of range-gated imaging system in turbid condition,” Opt. Express 18(20), 21147–21154 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. In this case, target detection thus suffers from reduced signal-to-noise ratio due to superposition of photons reflected from the target and these diffusive ones backscattered from the turbid medium. Those two types of photons above are difficult to differentiate from each other using conventional range-gated technology. Polarization properties of diffusive photons emerging from the turbid medium are investigated to overcome this problem.

2. Theory

Polarization is an inherent property of light. Polarization properties of wave is usually presented by Stokes vector (I, Q, U, V) as shown in Eq. (1).

S=(IQUV)=(12(I0+I90+I45+I135)I0I90I45I135ILIR)
(1)

The symbol I is radiation intensity, Q represents difference of radiation intensity between horizontal and vertical polarization direction, U indicates difference of radiation intensity between 45°and 135°direction respect to horizontal axis, V is computed by difference of radiation intensity between left-handed and right-handed circularly polarized light.

Mueller matrix of 4×4array is usually used to completely describe the polarization properties of object. When polarized light interacts with object, the polarized state of that could be changed by object. The process of modulation above can be expressed in a mathematical form, which is shown in Eq. (2).

S'=MS
(2)

S'andS indicate Stokes parameters of the scattered light and the incident light respectively. Mis Mueller matrix of the object which modulates the incident polarization state.

In the water with high turbidity, the signal from target is mixed with the diffusive light when we use the range-gated technology. And under conventional radiation detection, they cannot be separated from each other. To solve this problem, polarization properties of diffusive photons emerging from the turbid medium are studied. We assume that photons undergoing different scattering processes are not coherent. Mueller matrix of turbid medium can be seen as superimposition of photons with different polarization properties. Therefore Mueller-Stokes formalism can be expressed as the sum of photons with different scattering behaviors, which is shown in Eq. (3).

S'=1(aiMi)S
(3)

ai is the proportion of incident light scattered by i times, and Mi is Mueller matrix of the turbid medium associated with i times scattering.

In the case of polarization-based range-gated technology, Mueller matrix of the turbid medium is divided into the front part and the tail one in the simplified form of Eq. (4) to replace that shown in Eq. (3).

S'=(afMf+atMt)S
(4)

afand at are the front part and tail part components and Mf and Mt are the corresponding Mueller matrix in the range-gated technology.

3. Experimental setup

The experimental setup is schematically shown in Fig. 1
Fig. 1 The schematic of experimental design for combination of range-gated technology and polarization method.
. The 632.8nm output obtained from a He-Ne laser is expanded to 20mm through the beam expander B firstly, and then it goes through the linear polarizer P1 to be incident on a glass tank. The tank contains deionized water mixed with 20% Intralipid solution (Sino-Swed Pharmaceutical Corp. Ltd., China). Anisotropy scattering g = 0.73 of the Intralipid solution in the case of 632.8nm is given referring to [17

17. Optical properties of “IntralipidTM”, an aqueous suspension of lipid droplets” (Steven Jacques, Oregon Medical Laser Center, 1998). http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/intralipid/index.html.

]. The refractive index of the Intralipid solution is 1.50 which is measured using method provided by [18

18. D. Yong, L. Qiang, and L. Qingming, “Measurement of Particle Size Distribution and Refractive Index Using Azimuth-Resolved Based Diffuse Backscattering Light,” Acta Opt. Sin. 26(8), 1214–1219 (2006).

]. Laser power meter is placed in a backscattering geometry (~170°with respect to the propagation direction of the incident light) to detect the intensity of the backscattered light emerging from the Intralipid solution. Another linear polarized analyzer P2 is set in front of the lens to select specific polarization state of light. The narrow band filter F is used to pick out light in the central wavelength of 632.8nm. In this experiment, the Intralipid solution is diluted, but still needs to keep a relatively high level of turbidity, considering the limited image quality made by the conventional range-gated technology. A Nikon CD with a cross size of 16mm×18mm is used as a target and suspends in the middle of the tank. The smooth surface of the printed letters “Nik” on the CD is polarized, but the remaining part of the CD is depolarized. A 8 bit CCD (DMK 41BU02, Germany), which replacing the laser power meter, is applied to record images.

In our experiment, the intensity of the backscattered light from turbid medium are selected in four polarization channels: I0, I45, I90, I135, which are subsequently measured in the 0°,45°, 90°,135°directions referring to the horizontal axis. This paper only studies the linear polarization properties because they are easily handled and calibrated. Then polar decomposition of 3×3 Mueller matrix [19

19. M. K. Swami, S. Manhas, P. Buddhiwant, N. Ghosh, A. Uppal, and P. K. Gupta, “Polar decomposition of 3×3 Mueller matrix: a tool for quantitative tissue polarimetry,” Opt. Express 14(20), 9324–9337 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] is introduced to describe the linear polarization properties, including depolarization, retardance and diattenuation. The number of the scattering mfp’s is calculated byN=Lμs, where L is the distance from the front surface to the target, μsis the scattering coefficient. Utilizing the method provided in [20

20. J. S. Tyo, M. P. Rowe, E. N. Pugh Jr, and N. Engheta, “Target detection in optically scattering media by polarization-difference imaging,” Appl. Opt. 35(11), 1855–1870 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] scattering, we can measure the coefficientμsand the absorption coefficientμa. The method described in [21

21. M. K. Swami, S. Manhas, H. Patel, and P. K. Gupta, “Mueller matrix measurements on absorbing turbid medium,” Appl. Opt. 49(18), 3458–3464 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] can be used to simulate the range-gated technology. Black ink is used as absorber at different concentrations when it added to the Intralipid solution. The absorber eliminates the multiply scattered photons that constitute the major part of long-path photons. Therefore, radiation intensity detected with different concentrations of ink can be obtained from subtracting the detected radiation intensity without the ink, and the tail component is consequently acquired in the range-gated technology. In a word, the higher the absorption coefficient is, the more photons are absorbed, i.e., absorption coefficient is in an inverse ratio to delaying time described in the gate-range technology. In this case, in our simulation of the range-gated technology, we use the absorption coefficient to describe the property of delaying time.

4. Experimental results and discussion

The measured polarization properties of the multiply scattered photons are shown in Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Polarization properties for the Intralipid solution with scattering coefficient 5.1cm−1 at different absorption coefficient. (a) Depolarization curve for the Intralipid solution with scattering coefficient 5.1cm−1 at different absorption coefficient. (b) Diattenuation curve for the Intralipid solution with scattering coefficient 5.1cm−1 at different absorption coefficient. (c) Linear retardance curve for the Intralipid solution with scattering coefficient 5.1cm−1 at different absorption coefficient.
in the form of polar decomposition of Mueller matrix.

Polarization properties of diffusive photons presented in Fig. 2 are useful for detecting target in turbid or scattering medium. In conventional tail-gated technology, signal-to-noise ratio suffers from superposition of photons scattered in the turbid medium and those reflected from the target in high level turbid medium. The polarization-based range-gated technology is proposed to filter out multiply scattered and few scattering photons in maximum. Result shown in Fig. 2(a) demonstrates that multiply backscattered photons from the turbid medium are almost completely depolarized while man-made object has better polarization maintaining property [22

22. B. J. DeBoo, J. M. Sasian, and R. A. Chipman, “Depolarization of diffusely reflecting man-made objects,” Appl. Opt. 44(26), 5434–5445 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Conventional polarization component Q2+U2 [23

23. D. B. Chenault and J. L. Pezzaniti, “Polarization imaging through scattering medium,” Proc. SPIE 4133, 124–133 (2000). [CrossRef]

] is considered to increase signal-to-noise ratio of the light reflected from the target and the light which is multiply scattered from the turbid medium. However, as can be seen from Figs. 2(b) and 2(c), when the scattering coefficient is below 4.5mm−1, diattenuation and retardance of the multiply scattered photons become zero. It means that, in our experiment, when vertical polarized light is incident on the turbid medium, the plane of polarization of multiply scattered photons does not rotate. This phenomenon results in the same radiation intensity detected respectively at 45°and 135°direction with respect to horizontal axis, i.e., U equals zero. Therefore, we use polarization-difference method based on the phenomenon that diattenuation and retardance of the multiply scattered photons become zero when the scattering coefficient is below 4.5mm−1. It should be noted that Mueller matrix of most man-made objects are diagonal, i.e., they are purely depolarizing [22

22. B. J. DeBoo, J. M. Sasian, and R. A. Chipman, “Depolarization of diffusely reflecting man-made objects,” Appl. Opt. 44(26), 5434–5445 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

,24

24. S. Y. Lu and R. A. Chipman, “Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13(5), 1106–1113 (1996). [CrossRef]

,25

25. M. Alouini, F. Goudail, A. Grisard, J. Bourderionnet, D. Dolfi, A. Bénière, I. Baarstad, T. Løke, P. Kaspersen, X. Normandin, and G. Berginc, “Near-infrared active polarimetric and multispectral laboratory demonstrator for target detection,” Appl. Opt. 48(8), 1610–1618 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Polarization-difference image, which we refer in Eq. (5) represents the subtraction of two orthogonal polarization components. With this polarization method, only co-polarization (parallel to the incident light polarization) and cross-polarization (perpendicular to the incident light polarization) need to be measured, which could effectively reduce the times of measurement.

Idifference=IcoIcross
(5)

Idifference is the obtained intensity by polarization-difference method, and Ico and Icross indicate polarization components that are parallel and vertical to the incident polarization respectively.

Images acquired using different detection methods in the diluted Intralipid solution with N = 5.1 are shown in Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Images acquired using different detection methods in the diluted Intralipid solution with N = 5.1. (a) Intensity image (left) and curve along the line with a triangular symbol (right) without added ink. The contrast in the red circle area is 0.125. (b) Range-gated image (left) and curve along the line with a triangular symbol (right) with absorption coefficient 4.5mm−1. The contrast in the red circle area is 0.217. (c) Combination of polarization-difference method and range-gated technology image (left) and curve along the line with a triangular symbol (right) with absorption coefficient 4.5mm−1. The contrast in the red circle area is 0.446.
.

Figures 3(a) and 3(b) in the left show the images of the target which is inside of the Intralipid solution with N = 5.3 and absorption coefficient μa = 4.5−1mm, under the condition of using conventional intensity detection method and the range-gated technology respectively. Figure 3(c) in the left is the image of target achieved by combining the range-gated technology with the polarization-difference method. The intensity profiles of images along the vertical line where the triangular symbol shown in Fig. 3(a) belongs are presented correspondingly in the right parts of Figs. 3(a)-3(c). The contrast C is computed by Eq. (6), where Imax and Imin are consecutive local maximum and minimum intensity of the profiles in which the red circle is signed. To facilitate the comparison process, the same position is needed to be selected among Figs. 3(a)-3(c). In this condition, the range-gated technology has an advantage over the intensity detection. This is because single scattering photons and few-scattering ones in the turbid medium have been filtered out by range-gated technology. However, the image quality is limited due to the diffusive light. A significant improvement of the image contrast with 0.446 is presented when the range-gated technology and the polarization method are combined, the highest image contrast shown in Fig. 3(c). In our experiment, comparing with the conventional range-gated technology, we have observed that the contrast had been doubled in this technology. In this case, not only few scattering photons are filtered out by tail-gated technology, but also multiply scattered photons are eliminated mostly by polarization-difference method based on the depolarization properties of turbid medium, as demonstrated in Fig. 2(a). It should be noted that the intensity is measured at only two polarization channels: co-polarization and cross-polarization, due to the disappearance of retardance and diattenuation when the absorption coefficient is low, which is shown in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c). It is more convenient to operate if the times of measurements are effectively reduced. The imaging technology proposed here can be used to better detect the target submerged in turbid or scattering medium.

C=ImaxIminImax+Imin
(6)

In practical application, man-made object detection through turbid medium is widely used. The imaging technology described here, with range-gated technology and polarization method, is of great importance to image object in a relatively high level of turbid medium. It is time-saving that only co-polarization and cross-polarization components are measured with this technology. It is exciting that, to promote this technology forward, wollaston prism can be introduced to separate the orthogonal components without rotation of the optical element [10

10. D. A. Miller and E. L. Dereniak, “Selective polarization imager for contrast enhancements in remote scattering media,” Appl. Opt. 51(18), 4092–4102 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. It makes the real-time detection possible.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, we have studied the linear polarization properties of diffusive photons, including depolarization, retardance and diattenuation in turbid medium of Intralipid solution at 632.8nm. Diffusive photons are high depolarized in the process of multiple scattering in turbid medium, while retardance and diattenuation become zero. On the basis of the study above, the combination of range-gated technology and polarization detection method is considered as a useful tool to generate better image quality than the conventional range-gated technology when we image a high reflective target inside high level turbidity. In our experiment, comparing with the conventional range-gated technology, we have observed that the contrast is doubled in this technology. Further work is considered to study the properties of circular polarized light in the application of range-gated technology.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and funding from National Natural Science Foundation of China.

References and links

1.

A. Swartz, “Laser range gated underwater imaging advances,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 19, 722–727 (1994).

2.

C. Tan, A. Sluzek, and G. Seet, “Model of gated imaging in turbid media,” Opt. Eng. 44(11), 116002 (2005). [CrossRef]

3.

H. Li, X. Wang, T. Bai, W. Jin, Y. Huang, and K. Ding, “Speckle noise suppression of range-gated underwater imaging system,” Proc. SPIE 7443, 74432A, 74432A-8 (2009). [CrossRef]

4.

K. D. Paulsen and H. Jiang, “Enhanced frequency-domain optical image reconstruction in tissues through total-variation minimization,” Appl. Opt. 35(19), 3447–3458 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5.

A. T. N. Kumar, S. B. Raymond, B. J. Bacskai, and D. A. Boas, “Comparison of frequency-domain and time-domain fluorescence lifetime tomography,” Opt. Lett. 33(5), 470–472 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6.

M. P. Rowe, E. N. Pugh Jr, J. S. Tyo, and N. Engheta, “Polarization-difference imaging: a biologically inspired technique for observation through scattering media,” Opt. Lett. 20(6), 608–610 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7.

P. C. Y. Chang, J. G. Walker, K. I. Hopcraft, B. Ablitt, and E. Jakeman, “Polarization discrimination for active imaging in scattering media,” Opt. Commun. 159(1–3), 1–6 (1999). [CrossRef]

8.

S. A. Kartazayeva, X. Ni, and R. R. Alfano, “Backscattering target detection in a turbid medium by use of circularly and linearly polarized light,” Opt. Lett. 30(10), 1168–1170 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9.

T. Novikova, A. Bénière, F. Goudail, and A. De Martino, “Sources of possible artefacts in the contrast evaluation for the backscattering polarimetric images of different targets in turbid medium,” Opt. Express 17(26), 23851–23860 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10.

D. A. Miller and E. L. Dereniak, “Selective polarization imager for contrast enhancements in remote scattering media,” Appl. Opt. 51(18), 4092–4102 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11.

M. E. Zevallos, L. S. K. Gayen, M. Alrubaiee, and R. R. Alfano, “Time-gated backscattered ballistic light imaging of objects in turbid water,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 86(01115), 1–3 (2005).

12.

C. Tan, G. Seet, A. Sluzek, X. Wang, C. T. Yuen, C. Y. Fam, and H. Y. Wong, “Scattering noise estimation of range-gated imaging system in turbid condition,” Opt. Express 18(20), 21147–21154 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13.

G. D. Lewis, D. L. Jordan, and P. J. Roberts, “Backscattering target detection in a turbid medium by polarization discrimination,” Appl. Opt. 38(18), 3937–3944 (1999). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

X. Ni and R. R. Alfano, “Time-resolved backscattering of circularly and linearly polarized light in a turbid medium,” Opt. Lett. 29(23), 2773–2775 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15.

M. Xu and R. R. Alfano, “Circular polarization memory of light,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 72(6), 065601 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16.

L. Xu, H. Li, and Y. Zheng, “Influence of single scattering and multiple scattering on backscattered Mueller matrix in turbid media,” Chin. Opt. Lett. 7(1), 64–66 (2009). [CrossRef]

17.

Optical properties of “IntralipidTM”, an aqueous suspension of lipid droplets” (Steven Jacques, Oregon Medical Laser Center, 1998). http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/intralipid/index.html.

18.

D. Yong, L. Qiang, and L. Qingming, “Measurement of Particle Size Distribution and Refractive Index Using Azimuth-Resolved Based Diffuse Backscattering Light,” Acta Opt. Sin. 26(8), 1214–1219 (2006).

19.

M. K. Swami, S. Manhas, P. Buddhiwant, N. Ghosh, A. Uppal, and P. K. Gupta, “Polar decomposition of 3×3 Mueller matrix: a tool for quantitative tissue polarimetry,” Opt. Express 14(20), 9324–9337 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

20.

J. S. Tyo, M. P. Rowe, E. N. Pugh Jr, and N. Engheta, “Target detection in optically scattering media by polarization-difference imaging,” Appl. Opt. 35(11), 1855–1870 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

21.

M. K. Swami, S. Manhas, H. Patel, and P. K. Gupta, “Mueller matrix measurements on absorbing turbid medium,” Appl. Opt. 49(18), 3458–3464 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

22.

B. J. DeBoo, J. M. Sasian, and R. A. Chipman, “Depolarization of diffusely reflecting man-made objects,” Appl. Opt. 44(26), 5434–5445 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

23.

D. B. Chenault and J. L. Pezzaniti, “Polarization imaging through scattering medium,” Proc. SPIE 4133, 124–133 (2000). [CrossRef]

24.

S. Y. Lu and R. A. Chipman, “Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13(5), 1106–1113 (1996). [CrossRef]

25.

M. Alouini, F. Goudail, A. Grisard, J. Bourderionnet, D. Dolfi, A. Bénière, I. Baarstad, T. Løke, P. Kaspersen, X. Normandin, and G. Berginc, “Near-infrared active polarimetric and multispectral laboratory demonstrator for target detection,” Appl. Opt. 48(8), 1610–1618 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

OCIS Codes
(290.5855) Scattering : Scattering, polarization
(280.1350) Remote sensing and sensors : Backscattering

ToC Category:
Remote Sensing

History
Original Manuscript: April 3, 2013
Revised Manuscript: May 25, 2013
Manuscript Accepted: May 25, 2013
Published: June 6, 2013

Virtual Issues
Vol. 8, Iss. 7 Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Citation
Jinge Guan and Jingping Zhu, "Target detection in turbid medium using polarization-based range-gated technology," Opt. Express 21, 14152-14158 (2013)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-21-12-14152


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. A. Swartz, “Laser range gated underwater imaging advances,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng.19, 722–727 (1994).
  2. C. Tan, A. Sluzek, and G. Seet, “Model of gated imaging in turbid media,” Opt. Eng.44(11), 116002 (2005). [CrossRef]
  3. H. Li, X. Wang, T. Bai, W. Jin, Y. Huang, and K. Ding, “Speckle noise suppression of range-gated underwater imaging system,” Proc. SPIE7443, 74432A, 74432A-8 (2009). [CrossRef]
  4. K. D. Paulsen and H. Jiang, “Enhanced frequency-domain optical image reconstruction in tissues through total-variation minimization,” Appl. Opt.35(19), 3447–3458 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. A. T. N. Kumar, S. B. Raymond, B. J. Bacskai, and D. A. Boas, “Comparison of frequency-domain and time-domain fluorescence lifetime tomography,” Opt. Lett.33(5), 470–472 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. M. P. Rowe, E. N. Pugh, J. S. Tyo, and N. Engheta, “Polarization-difference imaging: a biologically inspired technique for observation through scattering media,” Opt. Lett.20(6), 608–610 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. P. C. Y. Chang, J. G. Walker, K. I. Hopcraft, B. Ablitt, and E. Jakeman, “Polarization discrimination for active imaging in scattering media,” Opt. Commun.159(1–3), 1–6 (1999). [CrossRef]
  8. S. A. Kartazayeva, X. Ni, and R. R. Alfano, “Backscattering target detection in a turbid medium by use of circularly and linearly polarized light,” Opt. Lett.30(10), 1168–1170 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. T. Novikova, A. Bénière, F. Goudail, and A. De Martino, “Sources of possible artefacts in the contrast evaluation for the backscattering polarimetric images of different targets in turbid medium,” Opt. Express17(26), 23851–23860 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. D. A. Miller and E. L. Dereniak, “Selective polarization imager for contrast enhancements in remote scattering media,” Appl. Opt.51(18), 4092–4102 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. M. E. Zevallos, L. S. K. Gayen, M. Alrubaiee, and R. R. Alfano, “Time-gated backscattered ballistic light imaging of objects in turbid water,” Appl. Phys. Lett.86(01115), 1–3 (2005).
  12. C. Tan, G. Seet, A. Sluzek, X. Wang, C. T. Yuen, C. Y. Fam, and H. Y. Wong, “Scattering noise estimation of range-gated imaging system in turbid condition,” Opt. Express18(20), 21147–21154 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. G. D. Lewis, D. L. Jordan, and P. J. Roberts, “Backscattering target detection in a turbid medium by polarization discrimination,” Appl. Opt.38(18), 3937–3944 (1999). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. X. Ni and R. R. Alfano, “Time-resolved backscattering of circularly and linearly polarized light in a turbid medium,” Opt. Lett.29(23), 2773–2775 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. M. Xu and R. R. Alfano, “Circular polarization memory of light,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys.72(6), 065601 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. L. Xu, H. Li, and Y. Zheng, “Influence of single scattering and multiple scattering on backscattered Mueller matrix in turbid media,” Chin. Opt. Lett.7(1), 64–66 (2009). [CrossRef]
  17. Optical properties of “IntralipidTM”, an aqueous suspension of lipid droplets” (Steven Jacques, Oregon Medical Laser Center, 1998). http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/intralipid/index.html .
  18. D. Yong, L. Qiang, and L. Qingming, “Measurement of Particle Size Distribution and Refractive Index Using Azimuth-Resolved Based Diffuse Backscattering Light,” Acta Opt. Sin.26(8), 1214–1219 (2006).
  19. M. K. Swami, S. Manhas, P. Buddhiwant, N. Ghosh, A. Uppal, and P. K. Gupta, “Polar decomposition of 3×3 Mueller matrix: a tool for quantitative tissue polarimetry,” Opt. Express14(20), 9324–9337 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. J. S. Tyo, M. P. Rowe, E. N. Pugh, and N. Engheta, “Target detection in optically scattering media by polarization-difference imaging,” Appl. Opt.35(11), 1855–1870 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. M. K. Swami, S. Manhas, H. Patel, and P. K. Gupta, “Mueller matrix measurements on absorbing turbid medium,” Appl. Opt.49(18), 3458–3464 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. B. J. DeBoo, J. M. Sasian, and R. A. Chipman, “Depolarization of diffusely reflecting man-made objects,” Appl. Opt.44(26), 5434–5445 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. D. B. Chenault and J. L. Pezzaniti, “Polarization imaging through scattering medium,” Proc. SPIE4133, 124–133 (2000). [CrossRef]
  24. S. Y. Lu and R. A. Chipman, “Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A13(5), 1106–1113 (1996). [CrossRef]
  25. M. Alouini, F. Goudail, A. Grisard, J. Bourderionnet, D. Dolfi, A. Bénière, I. Baarstad, T. Løke, P. Kaspersen, X. Normandin, and G. Berginc, “Near-infrared active polarimetric and multispectral laboratory demonstrator for target detection,” Appl. Opt.48(8), 1610–1618 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited