OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Andrew M. Weiner
  • Vol. 21, Iss. 21 — Oct. 21, 2013
  • pp: 25403–25417
« Show journal navigation

Numerical characterization of an ultra-high NA coherent fiber bundle part II: point spread function analysis

Stefaan Heyvaert, Heidi Ottevaere, Ireneusz Kujawa, Ryszard Buczynski, and Hugo Thienpont  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 21, Issue 21, pp. 25403-25417 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.21.025403


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1974 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

Straightforward numerical integration of the Rayleigh-Sommerfeld diffraction integral (R-SDI) remains computationally challenging, even with today’s computational resources. As such, approximating the R-SDI to decrease the computation time while maintaining a good accuracy is still a topic of interest. In this paper, we apply an approximation for the R-SDI that is to be used to propagate the field exiting a Coherent Fiber Bundle (CFB) with ultra-high numerical aperture (0.928) of which we presented the design and modal properties in previous work. Since our CFB has single-mode cores with a diameter (550nm) smaller than the wavelength (850nm) for which the CFB was designed, we approximate the highly divergent fundamental modes of the cores with real Dirac delta functions. We find that with this approximation we can strongly reduce the computation time of the R-SDI while maintaining a good agreement with the results of the full R-SDI. Using this approximation, we first determine the Point Spread Function (PSF) for an ‘ideal’ output field exiting the CFB (identical amplitudes for cores on a perfect hexagonal lattice with the phase of each core determined by the appropriate spherical and tilted plane wave front). Next, we analyze the PSF when amplitude or phase noise is superposed onto this ‘ideal’ field. We find that even in the presence of these types of noise, the effect on the central peak of PSF is limited. From these types of noise, phase noise is found to have the biggest impact on the PSF.

© 2013 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

We fabricated several prototypes of the CFB according to our design in Table 1 at the Institute of Materials Technology in Warsaw. Using SEM images of the fabricated prototype which best matched our design, we quantified the variations in core size, core shape (or ellipticity) and lattice constant due to the limitations of the fabrication technology and analyzed the influence these variations have on the requirements for the necessary proximal input field in order to achieve a desired field at the output [18

18. S. Heyvaert, H. Ottevaere, I. Kujawa, R. Buczynski, M. Raes, H. Terryn, and H. Thienpont, “Numerical characterization of an ultra-high NA coherent fiber bundle part I: modal analysis,” Opt. Express 21(19), 21991–22011 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

The advantage of PSLM is that, within the limits of the fiber’s guided (eigen-)modes, any distal output field can be generated given the correct input field. For example, if the light exiting the CFB needs to be focused at an off-axis point in the image plane, the proximal input field will be spatially modulated in such way that the wave front of the distal output field will be the combination of the appropriate spherical and tilted plane wave front. In order to numerically characterize the Point Spread Function (PSF) of our CFB, different distal output fields (with the same spherical wave front but with different tilted plane wave fronts to simulate scanning of the beam) need to be propagated from the distal exit facet of the CFB towards the image plane. Since the CFB’s single-mode cores have a small diameter-to-wavelength ratio (0.647), their Gaussian fundamental mode will be highly divergent and thus non-paraxial. Accurate propagation of these non-paraxial Gaussians can be achieved via a rigorous technique such as the Rayleigh-Sommerfeld diffraction integral (R-SDI). Since a CFB typically contains thousands of cores, adequate spatial sampling of each Gaussian fundamental mode leads to a large matrix representing the CFB’s distal output field (or object field) to be propagated. Direct integration of the R-SDI, even with a more coarsely sampled image plane, would result in unwieldy computation times. And while FFT based implementations of the R-SDI have a much lower computation time, they do not allow the pixel pitch and field size to be customized independently for the object and image plane [19

19. A. Wuttig, M. Kanka, H. J. Kreuzer, and R. Riesenberg, “Packed domain Rayleigh-Sommerfeld wavefield propagation for large targets,” Opt. Express 18(26), 27036–27047 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. In our case, the small diameter-to-wavelength ratio for the single-mode cores can be used to our advantage as we found that it allowed us to approximate the fundamental mode of each core by a real Dirac Delta function with a certain phase. This allows direct integration of the R-SDI with an object field with Nc points (with Nc the number of cores) instead of N × N points with Nc obviously smaller than N × N. This approximation of the non-paraxial fundamental mode by a Dirac Delta function (and its beneficial consequences for the R-SDI) is further explored in section 2 where we validate it by comparing the PSF predicted by the exact R-SDI with the one predicted by our approximation. In section 3 we use the approximated R-SDI to analyze the influence of different kinds of ‘noise’ on the PSF. In theory, if at the proximal input the correct field is coupled into the CFB, at the CFB’s distal output all the cores will have the same amplitude and the wave front will be the appropriate combination of a spherical and tilted plane. However, when the actual proximal input field differs from this required proximal input field, the actual distal output field will have an amplitude and/or phase different from that of the desired distal output field and this in turn will have consequences for the PSF. In section 3 we compare the PSFs resulting from the propagation of the noise free distal output field for different viewing angles within the FOV with the PSFs resulting from the propagation of ‘noisy’ distal output fields for the same viewing angles and for varying amounts of noise on amplitude, wave front or both.

2. Approximation for the Rayleigh-Sommerfeld propagation formula

Results of the propagation with both methods are shown in Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Cross sections in the image plane along x-axis and y-axis (left and right column respectively) of the propagated field using the exact R-SDI and the approximation for θ = 0° (top row), θ = 15° (middle row) and θ = 30° (bottom row) show good agreement.
which shows the cross sections of the propagated fields along the x and y-axis for θ = 0°, θ = 15° and θ = 30°. In general, there is a good agreement between the fields propagated with both methods although there is noticeable decrease in the accuracy of the approximation as θ increases.

One disadvantage of this approximation is that variations in beam divergence, caused by variations in core area (which are present due to the limitation of the fabrication technology as shown in [18

18. S. Heyvaert, H. Ottevaere, I. Kujawa, R. Buczynski, M. Raes, H. Terryn, and H. Thienpont, “Numerical characterization of an ultra-high NA coherent fiber bundle part I: modal analysis,” Opt. Express 21(19), 21991–22011 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]), cannot be taken into account since the approximation assumes all the cores are point sources. To determine if Eq. (5) would still be a good approximation in the presence of realistic core size variations, we took the fields as shown in Fig. 1 and gave the (circular) cores different diameters according to a Gaussian probability density function with average 550nm and standard deviation 50nm (chosen to be larger than the actual standard deviation of 0.013μm observed in SEM images of fabricated prototypes [18

18. S. Heyvaert, H. Ottevaere, I. Kujawa, R. Buczynski, M. Raes, H. Terryn, and H. Thienpont, “Numerical characterization of an ultra-high NA coherent fiber bundle part I: modal analysis,” Opt. Express 21(19), 21991–22011 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]). The amplitude of the resulting E-field is shown in Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Amplitude of the field (with variations in core size clearly visible) to be propagated with the standard R-SDI.
. The phase of each core remained the same as described earlier (see Figs. 1(b)-1(d)). Using the standard R-SDI, we again propagated this field towards the observation plane at z = 500μm and compared it with the propagation obtained via the approximation. The resulting cross-sections along the x-axis and y-axis in the image plane for the different values of θ are shown in Fig. 4
Fig. 4 Even for cores with different diameters, the cross sections of the propagated field using the exact R-SDI and the approximation show good agreement.
where again we see good agreement between the fields propagated with both methods as well as the decrease in the accuracy of the approximation as θ increases.

To quantify the difference between the fields propagated with the exact and approximated R-SDI for both the case with identical cores as well as with variable core sizes, we used the RMS error, which we defined as:
1Niq=1Ni|EqexactEqapproximation|2
(6)
with Ni the number of points in the image plane. The RMS error as function of the FOV angle θ for the propagation with identical cores and the propagation with variable core sizes is shown in Fig. 5
Fig. 5 The RMS error for the case with variable core sizes is higher than for the case with identical cores though the difference in RMS error between the two cases decreases for increasing θ.
.

As expected, the approximation performs less well when the field to be propagated contains cores of different sizes though the difference in RMS error between the two cases decreases for increasing θ. Even so, as the cross sections in Fig. 4 show, Eq. (5) still leads to an acceptable approximation especially if we take into account that the standard deviation on the core diameter used in our calculations here, is larger than the one observed in SEM images of CFBs fabricated according to our design [18

18. S. Heyvaert, H. Ottevaere, I. Kujawa, R. Buczynski, M. Raes, H. Terryn, and H. Thienpont, “Numerical characterization of an ultra-high NA coherent fiber bundle part I: modal analysis,” Opt. Express 21(19), 21991–22011 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Moreover, the computation time with the approximated R-SDI was about 30000 times smaller than that with the exact R-SDI. This was to be expected since with the approximated R-SDI the object field to propagate is (1281 × 761)/19 ≈50000 times smaller. The authors would like to stress that the relative decrease in computation time mentioned here is case specific and depends entirely on the ratio (N × N)/Nc. For example if the object field for the same number of cores Nc is now defined with N2×N2 instead of (N × N) then the relative decrease in computation time will be 4 times smaller. It should also be noted that the decrease in computation time is solely the result of the approximation and no efforts were made to optimize the code for speed.

3. Influence of amplitude and phase noise on the PSF

Using the simplified R-SDI, we computed the PSF for an ideal object field exiting the distal end of our CFB which consists of 25 rings of identical, circular cores on a perfect hexagonal lattice (for a total of 1951 cores) and this for FOV half-angles from θ = 0° up to and including θ = 30° (by adding, on top of a spherical wave front for focusing, the linear phase shift corresponding with θ, as illustrated in Fig. 1 in [18

18. S. Heyvaert, H. Ottevaere, I. Kujawa, R. Buczynski, M. Raes, H. Terryn, and H. Thienpont, “Numerical characterization of an ultra-high NA coherent fiber bundle part I: modal analysis,” Opt. Express 21(19), 21991–22011 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]). The image plane, with dimensions 394 × 127 μm2 (along the x-axis and y-axis respectively), was located at a propagation distance of 500μm, and centered at (197μm,0μm) to allow the evaluation of the PSF for the different half-angles θ with the same image plane. The resulting PSFs of this ideal field were then used as a reference to compare the PSFs of ‘noisy’ object fields with. We analyzed the influence of two types of object field noise namely noise on the amplitude and phase of the field from each.

First, we characterized the influence of ‘noise’ on the amplitudes of the field coming from each core. Ideally, each single-mode core would emit a field with the same amplitude as long as, for a given length of CFB, the correct input field is coupled into the CFB. However, changes in the thermobaric conditions of the CFB’s surroundings, bending of the CFB and variations in n(x,y) can all lead to unforeseen intercore coupling resulting in variations in the amplitude of the cores’ field in the object plane. To check how robust the PSF would be in the presence of such amplitude variations, we superimposed, for each viewing angle, Gaussian noise with different standard deviations onto the amplitude of the aforementioned ideal field and then recalculated the PSF of this noisy field. The Probability Density Functions (PDFs) used for the Gaussian noise on the amplitude are shown in Fig. 6
Fig. 6 The different probability density functions used to simulate noise on the amplitude of the cores. Negative amplitudes were set to zero.
. Note that as the standard deviation for the amplitude grows, the probability for a negative amplitude grows larger. Since a negative amplitude is equal to a positive one with a π-phase shift, allowing negative amplitudes would also take noise on the wave front into account and therefore we equated all negative amplitudes to zero. This allowed us to also take into account cores that are broken (e.g. fractured or severed) during fabrication or due to careless handling and which can no longer guide light from the proximal to the distal end.

In Fig. 7
Fig. 7 The PSF at different viewing angles θ, without amplitude noise (left column) and with noise (middle and right column). The PSF for more values of θ and σΑ were calculated but are not shown here for the sake of conciseness.
, the PSFs at θ = 0°, θ = 15° and θ = 30° for σΑ = 0 (reference PSF), σΑ = 0.44 and σΑ = 1 are shown (the PSFs for θ = 5°, 10°, 20° and 25° were also calculated but are not shown for the sake of conciseness). Noticeable is that as the viewing angle θ increases, the amount of speckle like patterns in the image plane is larger for the same σΑ. The cross sections, through the focus, along the x-axis and the y-axis for different values of σΑ and θ are shown in Fig. 8
Fig. 8 The cross sections through the focus along the x-axis (left column) and the y-axis (right column) vary little for varying σA even at large values of θ.
where we see that the width of the central peak of the PSF doesn’t change much as function of σΑ making the FWHM not useful as the measure of quality. Moreover, the FWHM doesn’t take into account the increase of speckle-like patterns in the background of the image plane (and thus the decrease in signal-to-noise) as can be seen on Fig. 7. Therefore, we opted to use the RMS error of the noisy PSFs with respect to the noise-free PSF as the measure of quality. The RMS error as function of σA at all the angles θ is shown in Fig. 9
Fig. 9 The RMS error as function of σA for different values of θ.
. For σA< 0.4, the RMS error increases in a near linear way with the slope determined by θ. As σA keeps increasing, the slope of each curve seems to flatten out indicating that for very large σA, the RMS error would remain constant. This is to be expected; as σA increases the PDFs from Fig. 6 go from a Gaussian distribution towards a uniform distribution. Also, for θ = 30° and σA = 1 the RMS error is limited (0.024) which allows us to conclude that the noise on the amplitude of the object field will only be of minor influence on the PSF (as is evidenced by the PSFs shown in Figs. 7 and their corresponding cross sections in Fig. 8).

In a similar way we looked at how noise on the phase of each core would influence the PSF in the image plane. In the noise free case, the phase of the cores was obtained by sampling the noise-free wave front which is the sum of a spherical and a linear wave front. We then added to the phase of each core noise according to a Gaussian PDF (with standard deviation σϕ) and determined, at each of the aforementioned values of θ, the PSF for values of σϕ ranging from 0 to 2π. But as Fig. 10
Fig. 10 The PSF at different viewing angles θ, without (left column) and with phase noise (middle and right column). For σϕ >2.31 (column on the right), the resulting ‘PSF’ is just speckle.
shows, for σϕ = 2.31 the resulting PSFs are little more than speckle, independent of θ.

This trend can also be seen when we look at the RMS error as function of σϕ (shown in Fig. 11
Fig. 11 The curves for the RMS error as function of σϕ for different values of θ. For >2.31 the RMS error approximately remains the same independent of θ.
) where we notice that from σϕ = 2.31 onwards the RMS error, for each θ, reaches a plateau around which it slightly oscillates meaning that from σϕ = 2.31 on the coherence of the original wave front is completely lost and that the resulting image will be noise dictated by the random noise of the object wave front. However, it should be noted that σϕ = 2.31 is an overestimation of the wave front noise which will be present in reality. From the datasheet of the Hamamatsu LCOS-SLM X10468 (a spatial light modulator used in [27

27. T. Cizmar and K. Dholakia, “In situ wavefront correction and its application to micromanipulation,” Nat. Photonics 4(6), 388–394 (2010). [CrossRef]

]) we can estimate the phase noise for a pixel to be approximately 0.11. For phase noise with σϕ ≤0.11, the RMS error as function of σϕ is nearly linear (Fig. 11 inset left) and the PSFs of the noisy wave fronts and their respective cross-sections (shown in Fig. 12
Fig. 12 The cross sections through the focus along the x-axis (left column) and the y-axis (right column) vary little for σϕ ≤0.11 even at large values of θ.
), are almost identical to the noise-free PSF.

In general, the PSF does seem to be surprisingly robust to phase noise. Even for σϕ = π/2, the central peak can be discerned for all angles up to and including θ = 30° as shown in Fig. 13
Fig. 13 The cross sections through the focus along the x-axis (left column) and the y-axis (right column) show discernible central peaks even at large values of θ for σϕ up to π/2.
. Also for σϕ in the [0, π/2] range the RMS error increases monotonically with σϕ, with the rate of increase proportional to θ (right inset of Fig. 11). Even so, uncontrolled bending of the CFB can lead to large changes, at the distal end, in both amplitude and phase of the cores with respect to the field in the unbent case. Since we found that even for σΑ = 1 the PSF is almost not affected, we expected that in the presence of both amplitude and phase noise the effect of the phase noise on the PSF will be dominant. To test if this is the case we propagated two distal fields which contained both amplitude and phase noise. The first distal field contained a lot of amplitude noise (σA = 1) but relatively little phase noise (σϕ = 0.11) while the second distal field contained both a lot of phase noise (σϕ = π/2) and amplitude noise (σA = 1). The cross sections of the PSF resulting from the propagation of a field with both amplitude and phase noise are shown in Fig. 14
Fig. 14 The cross sections through the focus along the x-axis (left column) and the y-axis (right column) resulting from the propagation of a field containing both amplitude and phase noise.
which shows that when there is a lot of amplitude noise but little phase noise, the resulting PSF closely matches the noise-free PSF (for θ = 0°, 15°, 30° the RMS is 0.0136, 0.0151 and 0.0237 respectively). However, when there is a lot of phase noise as well, the resulting PSF deviates a lot more from the noise free PSF (RMS = 0.0783, 0.0966, 0.1248 for θ = 0°, 15°, 30°) and it more closely matches the PSF of Fig. 13 in which the field to be propagated contained a lot of phase noise, but no amplitude noise.

This allows us to conclude that in case of bending (which causes noise on the amplitude and phase of the distal output field), the proximal input field should be adapted with the emphasis on the compensation of the wave front as bending can cause large phase jumps (>π) [28

28. M. J. Gander, D. Macrae, E. A. C. Galliot, R. McBride, J. D. C. Jones, P. M. Blanchard, J. G. Burnett, A. H. Greenaway, and M. N. Inci, “Two-axis bend measurement using multicore optical fibre,” Opt. Commun. 182(1–3), 115–121 (2000). [CrossRef]

] causing the phase relationship between cores to deteriorate which is detrimental for the PSF as evidenced by Fig. 10. Appropriate compensation of the proximal input field requires the knowledge of the magnitude and direction of the bending to which the CFB is subject. This could be achieved for example by integrating the CFB with a 3-core fiber optic shape sensor [29

29. J. P. Moore and M. D. Rogge, “Shape sensing using multi-core fiber optic cable and parametric curve solutions,” Opt. Express 20(3), 2967–2973 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] into a common catheter allowing for a real-time knowledge of the catheter’s (and thus the CFB’s) shape

4. Conclusion

In this paper we applied a simplified Rayleigh-Sommerfeld propagation formula for the CFB based on the low diameter-to-wavelength ratio (0.647) of the CFB’s cores. The approximation simplifies the Rayleigh-Sommerfeld diffraction integral and allows a drastic reduction of the computation time without too much loss in accuracy. If the object field consists of Nc cores and is represented by (N × N) points (for adequate spatial sampling of the object field), then the reduction in computing time with the approximation will be in the order of (N × N)/Nc. We then used this approximation to propagate an ideal output field exiting the CFB and determined the PSF for FOV viewing angles ranging from θ = 0° to θ = 30°. If the actual input field differs from the required input field, or if the thermobaric surroundings or the shape of the CFB changes, then the amplitude and phase of the actual distal output field will differ from those of the ideal output field. We modeled this difference as Gaussian noise on the amplitude or phase of the ideal output field. Using different standard deviations we propagated these noisy output fields to determine the corresponding PSF (for the same values of θ) and compared it with the PSF of a noise-free propagated output field. When there is noise on the amplitude only, we found that the presence of the amplitude noise mostly affects the side lobes of the PSF while the central peak, even for considerable amounts of noise (σA = 1), remains relatively unchanged (RMS error≤0.024) for all angles up to and including θ = 30°. When there is phase noise, we found that for σϕ>2.31 the propagated field deteriorates into speckle with no discernable central peak. For noise with σϕπ/2 the central peak can still be discerned at all angles up to θ = 30° (as was the case for amplitude noise with σA ≤1), but the corresponding RMS error is higher (0.13 for σϕ = π/2 at θ = 30°) than in the case with noise on the amplitude only. To determine which type of noise influences the PSF the most, we propagated a field which was subject to both amplitude and phase noise. In the case of high amplitude noise (σA = 1) and low phase noise (σϕ = 0.11), the resulting PSF closely matched the noise-free PSF (for θ = 0°, 15°, 30° the RMS is 0.0136, 0.0151 and 0.0237 respectively). However, when the phase noise was high as well (σϕ = π/2), the resulting PSF deviated a lot more from the noise free PSF (RMS = 0.0783, 0.0966, 0.1248) and closely resembled the PSF resulting from the propagation of a field with phase noise (σϕ = π/2) only. This allows us to conclude that phase noise in the CFB’s distal output field is more detrimental to the quality of the PSF then amplitude noise and its compensation should be the main goal during adjustment of the proximal input field.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Stefaan Heyvaert’s Ph.D. grant of the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT- Vlaanderen). R. Buczynski and I. Kujawa were supported by the project operating within the Foundation for Polish Science Team Programme, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, Operational Program Innovative Economy 2007-2013. This work was also supported in part by FWO, the 7th FP European Network of Excellence on Biophotonics Photonics 4 Life, the MP1205 COST Action, the Methusalem and Hercules foundations and the OZR of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB).

References and links

1.

C. M. Lee, C. J. Engelbrecht, T. D. Soper, F. Helmchen, and E. J. Seibel, “Scanning fiber endoscopy with highly flexible, 1 mm catheterscopes for wide-field, full-color imaging,” J Biophotonics 3(5-6), 385–407 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2.

J. U. Kang, J.-H. Han, X. Liu, and K. Zhang, “Common-path optical coherence tomography for biomedical imaging and sensing,” J Opt Soc Korea 14(1), 1–13 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3.

T. Xie, D. Mukai, S. Guo, M. Brenner, and Z. Chen, “Fiber-optic-bundle-based optical coherence tomography,” Opt. Lett. 30(14), 1803–1805 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4.

W. Wang, K. Zhang, Q. Ren, and J. U. Kang, “Comparison of different focusing systems for common-path optical coherence tomography with fiber-optic bundle as endoscopic probe ,” Opt. Eng . 48(10), 103001 (2009).

5.

H. D. Ford and R. P. Tam, “Fibre imaging bundles for full-field optical coherence tomography,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 18(9), 2949–2957 (2007). [CrossRef]

6.

L. V. Doronina-Amitonova, I. V. Fedotov, A. B. Fedotov, and A. M. Zheltikov, “High-resolution wide-field Raman imaging through a fiber bundle,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 102(16), 161113 (2013). [CrossRef]

7.

S. F. Elahi and T. D. Wang, “Future and advances in endoscopy,” J Biophotonics 4(7-8), 471–481 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8.

H. C. Park, C. Song, M. Kang, Y. Jeong, and K. H. Jeong, “Forward imaging OCT endoscopic catheter based on MEMS lens scanning,” Opt. Lett. 37(13), 2673–2675 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9.

P. M. Lane, A. L. P. Dlugan, R. Richards-Kortum, and C. E. Macaulay, “Fiber-optic confocal microscopy using a spatial light modulator,” Opt. Lett. 25(24), 1780–1782 (2000). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10.

J.-H. Han, J. Lee, and J. U. Kang, “Pixelation effect removal from fiber bundle probe based optical coherence tomography imaging,” Opt. Express 18(7), 7427–7439 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11.

T. Cižmár and K. Dholakia, “Exploiting multimode waveguides for pure fibre-based imaging,” Nat Commun 3, 1027 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12.

R. Di Leonardo and S. Bianchi, “Hologram transmission through multi-mode optical fibers,” Opt. Express 19(1), 247–254 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13.

A. J. Thompson, C. Paterson, M. A. A. Neil, C. Dunsby, and P. M. W. French, “Adaptive phase compensation for ultracompact laser scanning endomicroscopy,” Opt. Lett. 36(9), 1707–1709 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

M. Kyrish, R. Kester, R. Richards-Kortum, and T. Tkaczyk, “Improving spatial resolution of a fiber bundle optical biopsy,” Proc. SPIE 7558, Endoscopic Microscopy V, 755807, 755807-9 (2010). [CrossRef]

15.

S. Heyvaert, C. Debaes, H. Ottevaere, and H. Thienpont, “Design of a novel multicore optical fibre for imaging and beam delivery in endoscopy,” Proc. SPIE 8429, Optical Modelling and Design II, 84290Q, 84290Q-13 (2012). [CrossRef]

16.

D. Lorenc, M. Aranyosiova, R. Buczynski, R. Stepien, I. Bugar, A. Vincze, and D. Velic, “Nonlinear refractive index of multicomponent glasses designed for fabrication of photonic crystal fibers,” Appl. Phys. B 93(2–3), 531–538 (2008). [CrossRef]

17.

Schott website: http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/abbe_datasheets/schott_datasheet_sf6.pdf?highlighted_text=SF6

18.

S. Heyvaert, H. Ottevaere, I. Kujawa, R. Buczynski, M. Raes, H. Terryn, and H. Thienpont, “Numerical characterization of an ultra-high NA coherent fiber bundle part I: modal analysis,” Opt. Express 21(19), 21991–22011 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

19.

A. Wuttig, M. Kanka, H. J. Kreuzer, and R. Riesenberg, “Packed domain Rayleigh-Sommerfeld wavefield propagation for large targets,” Opt. Express 18(26), 27036–27047 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

20.

M. Lax, W. H. Louisell, and W. B. McKnight, “From Maxwell to paraxial optics,” Phys. Rev. A 11(4), 1365–1370 (1975). [CrossRef]

21.

G. P. Agrawal and D. N. Pattanayak, “Gaussian beam propagation beyond the paraxial approximation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69(4), 575–578 (1979). [CrossRef]

22.

M. Couture and P. A. Belanger, “From Gaussian beam to complex-source-point spherical wave,” Phys. Rev. A 24(1), 355–359 (1981). [CrossRef]

23.

L. B. Felsen, “Geometrical theory of diffraction, evanescent waves, complex rays and Gaussian beams,” Geophys. J. Int. 79(1), 77–88 (1984). [CrossRef]

24.

P.-A. Bellanger and M. Couture, “Boundary diffraction of an inhomogeneous wave,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 73(4), 446–450 (1983). [CrossRef]

25.

D. Marcuse, “Loss analysis of single-mode fiber splices,” Bell Syst. Tech. J. 56(5), 703–718 (1977). [CrossRef]

26.

J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics (McGraw-Hill, 1968), Chap. 3.

27.

T. Cizmar and K. Dholakia, “In situ wavefront correction and its application to micromanipulation,” Nat. Photonics 4(6), 388–394 (2010). [CrossRef]

28.

M. J. Gander, D. Macrae, E. A. C. Galliot, R. McBride, J. D. C. Jones, P. M. Blanchard, J. G. Burnett, A. H. Greenaway, and M. N. Inci, “Two-axis bend measurement using multicore optical fibre,” Opt. Commun. 182(1–3), 115–121 (2000). [CrossRef]

29.

J. P. Moore and M. D. Rogge, “Shape sensing using multi-core fiber optic cable and parametric curve solutions,” Opt. Express 20(3), 2967–2973 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

OCIS Codes
(060.2270) Fiber optics and optical communications : Fiber characterization
(060.2350) Fiber optics and optical communications : Fiber optics imaging
(060.2400) Fiber optics and optical communications : Fiber properties
(170.2150) Medical optics and biotechnology : Endoscopic imaging

ToC Category:
Medical Optics and Biotechnology

History
Original Manuscript: July 10, 2013
Revised Manuscript: September 10, 2013
Manuscript Accepted: October 7, 2013
Published: October 17, 2013

Citation
Stefaan Heyvaert, Heidi Ottevaere, Ireneusz Kujawa, Ryszard Buczynski, and Hugo Thienpont, "Numerical characterization of an ultra-high NA coherent fiber bundle part II: point spread function analysis," Opt. Express 21, 25403-25417 (2013)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-21-21-25403


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. C. M. Lee, C. J. Engelbrecht, T. D. Soper, F. Helmchen, and E. J. Seibel, “Scanning fiber endoscopy with highly flexible, 1 mm catheterscopes for wide-field, full-color imaging,” J Biophotonics3(5-6), 385–407 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. J. U. Kang, J.-H. Han, X. Liu, and K. Zhang, “Common-path optical coherence tomography for biomedical imaging and sensing,” J Opt Soc Korea14(1), 1–13 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. T. Xie, D. Mukai, S. Guo, M. Brenner, and Z. Chen, “Fiber-optic-bundle-based optical coherence tomography,” Opt. Lett.30(14), 1803–1805 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. W. Wang, K. Zhang, Q. Ren, and J. U. Kang, “Comparison of different focusing systems for common-path optical coherence tomography with fiber-optic bundle as endoscopic probe,” Opt. Eng. 48(10), 103001 (2009).
  5. H. D. Ford and R. P. Tam, “Fibre imaging bundles for full-field optical coherence tomography,” Meas. Sci. Technol.18(9), 2949–2957 (2007). [CrossRef]
  6. L. V. Doronina-Amitonova, I. V. Fedotov, A. B. Fedotov, and A. M. Zheltikov, “High-resolution wide-field Raman imaging through a fiber bundle,” Appl. Phys. Lett.102(16), 161113 (2013). [CrossRef]
  7. S. F. Elahi and T. D. Wang, “Future and advances in endoscopy,” J Biophotonics4(7-8), 471–481 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. H. C. Park, C. Song, M. Kang, Y. Jeong, and K. H. Jeong, “Forward imaging OCT endoscopic catheter based on MEMS lens scanning,” Opt. Lett.37(13), 2673–2675 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. P. M. Lane, A. L. P. Dlugan, R. Richards-Kortum, and C. E. Macaulay, “Fiber-optic confocal microscopy using a spatial light modulator,” Opt. Lett.25(24), 1780–1782 (2000). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. J.-H. Han, J. Lee, and J. U. Kang, “Pixelation effect removal from fiber bundle probe based optical coherence tomography imaging,” Opt. Express18(7), 7427–7439 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. T. Cižmár and K. Dholakia, “Exploiting multimode waveguides for pure fibre-based imaging,” Nat Commun3, 1027 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. R. Di Leonardo and S. Bianchi, “Hologram transmission through multi-mode optical fibers,” Opt. Express19(1), 247–254 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. A. J. Thompson, C. Paterson, M. A. A. Neil, C. Dunsby, and P. M. W. French, “Adaptive phase compensation for ultracompact laser scanning endomicroscopy,” Opt. Lett.36(9), 1707–1709 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. M. Kyrish, R. Kester, R. Richards-Kortum, and T. Tkaczyk, “Improving spatial resolution of a fiber bundle optical biopsy,” Proc. SPIE 7558, Endoscopic MicroscopyV, 755807, 755807-9 (2010). [CrossRef]
  15. S. Heyvaert, C. Debaes, H. Ottevaere, and H. Thienpont, “Design of a novel multicore optical fibre for imaging and beam delivery in endoscopy,” Proc. SPIE 8429, Optical Modelling and DesignII, 84290Q, 84290Q-13 (2012). [CrossRef]
  16. D. Lorenc, M. Aranyosiova, R. Buczynski, R. Stepien, I. Bugar, A. Vincze, and D. Velic, “Nonlinear refractive index of multicomponent glasses designed for fabrication of photonic crystal fibers,” Appl. Phys. B93(2–3), 531–538 (2008). [CrossRef]
  17. Schott website: http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/abbe_datasheets/schott_datasheet_sf6.pdf?highlighted_text=SF6
  18. S. Heyvaert, H. Ottevaere, I. Kujawa, R. Buczynski, M. Raes, H. Terryn, and H. Thienpont, “Numerical characterization of an ultra-high NA coherent fiber bundle part I: modal analysis,” Opt. Express21(19), 21991–22011 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. A. Wuttig, M. Kanka, H. J. Kreuzer, and R. Riesenberg, “Packed domain Rayleigh-Sommerfeld wavefield propagation for large targets,” Opt. Express18(26), 27036–27047 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. M. Lax, W. H. Louisell, and W. B. McKnight, “From Maxwell to paraxial optics,” Phys. Rev. A11(4), 1365–1370 (1975). [CrossRef]
  21. G. P. Agrawal and D. N. Pattanayak, “Gaussian beam propagation beyond the paraxial approximation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.69(4), 575–578 (1979). [CrossRef]
  22. M. Couture and P. A. Belanger, “From Gaussian beam to complex-source-point spherical wave,” Phys. Rev. A24(1), 355–359 (1981). [CrossRef]
  23. L. B. Felsen, “Geometrical theory of diffraction, evanescent waves, complex rays and Gaussian beams,” Geophys. J. Int.79(1), 77–88 (1984). [CrossRef]
  24. P.-A. Bellanger and M. Couture, “Boundary diffraction of an inhomogeneous wave,” J. Opt. Soc. Am.73(4), 446–450 (1983). [CrossRef]
  25. D. Marcuse, “Loss analysis of single-mode fiber splices,” Bell Syst. Tech. J.56(5), 703–718 (1977). [CrossRef]
  26. J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics (McGraw-Hill, 1968), Chap. 3.
  27. T. Cizmar and K. Dholakia, “In situ wavefront correction and its application to micromanipulation,” Nat. Photonics4(6), 388–394 (2010). [CrossRef]
  28. M. J. Gander, D. Macrae, E. A. C. Galliot, R. McBride, J. D. C. Jones, P. M. Blanchard, J. G. Burnett, A. H. Greenaway, and M. N. Inci, “Two-axis bend measurement using multicore optical fibre,” Opt. Commun.182(1–3), 115–121 (2000). [CrossRef]
  29. J. P. Moore and M. D. Rogge, “Shape sensing using multi-core fiber optic cable and parametric curve solutions,” Opt. Express20(3), 2967–2973 (2012). [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.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited