Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2017 Dec 27;9(1):145–165. doi: 10.1007/s13137-017-0102-y

The inverse scattering problem for orthotropic media in polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography

Peter Elbau 1, Leonidas Mindrinos 1,, Otmar Scherzer 1,2
PMCID: PMC5869888  PMID: 29606983

Abstract

In this paper we provide for a first time, to our knowledge, a mathematical model for imaging an anisotropic, orthotropic medium with polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography. The imaging problem is formulated as an inverse scattering problem in three dimensions for reconstructing the electrical susceptibility of the medium using Maxwell’s equations. Our reconstruction method is based on the second-order Born-approximation of the electric field.

Keywords: Optical coherence tomography, Maxwell’s equations, Electromagnetic scattering, Nonlinear integral equation

Introduction

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an imaging technique producing high-resolution images of the inner structure of biological tissues. Standard OCT uses broadband, continuous wave light for illumination and the images are obtained by measuring the time delay and the intensity of the backscattered light from the sample. For a detailed description of OCT systems we refer to the books (Bouma and Tearney 2002; Drexler and Fujimoto 2015) and for a mathematical modeling we refer to Elbau et al. (2015).

Apart form standard OCT, there exist also functional OCT techniques such as the polarization-sensitive OCT (PS-OCT) which considers the differences in the polarization state of light to determine the optical properties of the sample. PS-OCT is based on polarization-sensitive low coherence interferometry established by Hee et al. (1992) and then first applied to produce two-dimensional OCT images (de Boer et al. 1997, 1998). In this work, we consider the basic scheme of a PS-OCT system which consists of a Michelson interferometer with the addition of polarizers and quarter-wave plates (QWP).

More precisely, a linear polarizer is added after the source and the linear (horizontal or vertical) polarized light is split into two identical parts by a polarization-insensitive beam splitter (BS). In the reference arm the light is reflected by a mirror and in the sample arm the light is incident on the medium. At the BS, the back-reflected beam and the backscattered light from the sample, in an arbitrary polarization state, are recombined. The recombined light passes through a polarizing BS which splits the output signal into its horizontal and vertical components to be measured at two different photo detectors. See Fig. 1 for an illustration of this setup.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Schematic representation of the light travelling in a time-domain PS-OCT system. In the reference and sample arms are placed quarter-wave plates (QWP) at specific orientations

To describe the change in the polarization state of the light due to its propagation into the sample we adopt the analysis based on the theory of electromagnetic waves scattered by anisotropic inhomogeneous media (Colton and Kress 2013; Wolf and Foley 1989). We assume that the dielectric medium is linear and anisotropic. In addition, we impose the property that the medium is invariant under reflection by the x1-x2 plane. A medium with this property is called orthotropic in the mathematical community (Cakoni and Colton 2014) or monoclinic in the material science community (Torquato 2002).

The medium is also considered as weakly scattering and we present the solution in the accuracy of the second-order Born-approximation. As we are going to see later, we consider higher-order approximation in order to be able to recover all the material parameters. We describe the change in the polarization state of the light by the Jones matrix formalism which is applicable since OCT detects the coherent part of the electric field of the backscattered light (Jiao and Wang 2002). As in standard OCT systems, the backscattered light is detected in the far field.

In the medical community, the sample is usually described by a general retarder and the change in the polarization state of the light returning from the sample can be modelled by a Jones matrix (Hitzenberger et al. 2001; Jiao and Wang 2002). However, even though the produced images are satisfactory they are mainly used qualitatively. The usage of these images comes only secondarily to quantify the optical parameters by image processing techniques.

In this work we are interested in the quantitative description of PS-OCT. To do so, we have first to describe mathematically the system properly. Thus, we represent the polarized scattered field as solution to the full-wave Maxwell’s equations. This has not yet been applied to PS-OCT, since for isotropic media, the Born-approximation decouples the effects of the optical properties of the sample from the polarization state of the scattered field. However, this analysis for anisotropic media provides enough information to reconstruct the electric susceptibility of the medium. The scattered field satisfies then an integral equation of Lippmann–Schwinger type. Under the far-field approximation and the assumption of a homogeneous background medium we obtain a system of integral equations for the unknown optical parameters.

In the mathematical literature, the scattering problem by anisotropic objects has been widely considered over the last decades (Beker and Umashankar 1989; Geng et al. 2003; Graglia and Uslenghi 1984; Papadakis et al. 1990). Recently, the connection between the inverse problem to reconstruct the refractive index and the interior transmission problem has been investigated (Cakoni et al. 2010; Cakoni and Haddar 2007). For the specific case of an orthotropic medium we refer the reader to the book (Cakoni and Colton 2014) and to Colton et al. (1997) and Potthast (1999) for results concerning the uniqueness and existence of solutions of the inverse problem.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 2, we derive the integral representation of the scattered field for an orthotropic medium in the accuracy of the second-order Born-approximation in the far-field zone. In Sect. 3, we describe mathematically the standard PS-OCT system using the Jones matrix formalism and we derive the expression for the cross-spectral density. The system of equations for all the components of the susceptibility is presented in the last section using two incident illuminations.

Notation

In this paper, we use the following conventions:

  • Let f:RC be integrable, then the one-dimensional Fourier-transform is defined by
    f^(ω)=Rf(t)eiωtdt,forallωR.
  • Let f:RC be integrable, then the one-dimensional inverse Fourier-transform is defined by
    fˇ(t)=12πRf(ω)e-iωtdω,foralltR.
  • Let f:R3C be integrable, then the three-dimensional Fourier-transform is defined by
    f~(k)=R3f(x)e-ik,xdx,forallxR3.

The direct scattering problem

In absence of external charges and currents, the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a non-magnetic medium is mathematically described by Maxwell’s equations relating the electric and magnetic fields E:R×R3R3 and H:R×R3R3 and the electric displacement D:R×R3R3 by

graphic file with name 13137_2017_102_Equ1_HTML.gif 1

where c is the speed of light. Maxwell’s equations are not sufficient to uniquely determine the fields D,E and H. Therefore additional material parameters have to be specified:

Definition 1

An anisotropic medium is called linear dielectric if there exists a function, called the electric susceptibility,

χCc(R×R3;R3×3),withχ(τ,x)=0for allτ<0,xR3,

satisfying

D(t,x)=E(t,x)+Rχ(τ,x)E(t-τ,x)dτ. 2

A linear dielectric medium is called orthotropic (Cakoni and Colton 2014; Colton et al. 1997) if it admits the special symmetric form

χ=χ11χ120χ12χ22000χ33. 3

Application of the Fourier transform to Maxwell’s equations (1) and taking into account (2), it follows that the Fourier-transform E^ of E satisfies the vector Helmholtz equation

××E^(ω,x)-ω2c2(1+χ^(ω,x))E^(ω,x)=0,ωR,xR3. 4

Definition 2

We call an electric field Ei:R×R3R3 a causal initial field (CIF) with respect to some domain ΩR3 if

  1. Its Fourier transform with respect to time solves Maxwell’s equations (1) with a susceptibility χ=0, that is,
    ××E^i(ω,x)-ω2c2E^i(ω,x)=0,and·E^i(ω,x)=0,ωR,xR3, 5
  2. and satisfies suppEi(t,·)Ω=for everyt0.

The second condition means that Ei does not interact with the medium contained in Ω until the time t=0.

Example 1

Let ΩR3 be an open set, such that suppχ(t,·)Ω for all tR. Moreover, let qR2×{0} (denoting the polarization vector), fCc(R) and

E0(t,x)=qft+x3c, 6

such that

suppE0(t,·)Ω=for everyt0.

Then E0 is a CIF.

Proof

To see this note that for arbitrary qR3 we get

××E0=×1cft+x3ce3×q=1c2ft+x3ce3×(e3×q)=-1c2ft+x3cq=-1c2ttE0.

And for the particular choice qR2×{0} we even have that ·E0=0. This shows that E0 is a solution of Maxwell’s equation. The second assertion is an immediate consequence of the second assumption.

Theorem 1

Let Ei be a CIF-function and assume that the susceptibility χ represents a dielectric, orthotropic medium. Then,

  1. there exists a solution E (together with H) of Maxwell’s equations (1) which satisfies
    E(t,x)=Ei(t,x),t0,xR3. 7
  2. For every xR3 the function
    g:RC,ω(E^-E^i)(ω,x),
    can be extended to a square integrable, holomorphic function on the upper half plane
    H={ωCI(ω)>0}.
  3. E^ solves the Lippmann–Schwinger integral equation
    E^(ω,x)=E^i(ω,x)+ω2c21+·R3G(ω,x-y)χ^(ω,y)E^(ω,y)dy=:E^i(ω,x)+G[χ^E^](ω,x), 8
    where
    G(ω,x)=eiωc|x|4π|x|,x0,ωR
    is the fundamental solution of the scalar Helmholtz equation.

The integral operator G is strongly singular and we address its properties in the last section.

Proof

From the initial condition (7) it follows for every solution E of Maxwell’s equations (1) which fulfills (7) that the inverse Fourier-transform of g satisfies

gˇ(t)=0for allt0.

Thus, the second assertion is a direct consequence of the Paley–Wiener theorem (Papoulis 1962).

To prove the first part, note that the electric field E^ is uniquely defined by (4) together with the assumption that the function g can be for every xR3 extended to a square integrable, holomorphic function on the upper half plane.

Finally, the solution of Eq. (4) can be written as the solution of the integral Eq. (8), see Cakoni and Colton (2014) and Potthast (2000).

Born and far-field approximation

We assume that the medium is weakly scattering, meaning that χ^ is sufficiently small (Chew 1990; Colton and Kress 2013) such that the incident field E^i is significantly larger than E^-E^i.

Definition 3

The first order Born-approximation of the solution E^ of the Lippmann–Schwinger equation (8) is defined by

E^1=E^i+G[χ^E^i]. 9

The second order Born-approximation is defined by

E^2=E^i+G[χ^E^1]. 10

Inserting (9) into (10) gives

E^2=E^i+G[χ^E^i]+Gχ^G[χ^E^i], 11

or in coordinate writing

E^2(ω,x)=E^i(ω,x)+ω2c2R3G(ω,x-y)χ^(ω,y)E^i(ω,y)dy+ω4c4R3R3G(ω,x-y)χ^(ω,y)G(ω,y-z)χ^(ω,z)E^i(ω,z)dzdy, 12

where now G is the Green tensor of Maxwell’s equations (Haddar 2004; Hazard and Lenoir 1996)

G(ω,x-y)=G(ω,x-y)1+c2ω2·(G(ω,x-y)1).

The physical meaning of the second order Born-approximation is that at a point x the total field E^2 contains all single and double scattering events.

In an OCT setup, the measurements are performed in a distance much bigger compared to the size of the sample. Thus, setting x=ρϑ,ρ>0 and ϑS2, we can replace the above expression by its asymptotic behaviour for ρ, uniformly in ϑ, see for instance Elbau et al. (2015, Equation (4.1)), resulting to

E^2(ω,ρϑ)=E^i(ω,ρϑ)+G[χ^E^i](ω,ρϑ)+Gχ^G[χ^E^i](ω,ρϑ). 13

Here we have introduced the operator

G[f](ω,ρϑ):=-ω2eiωcρ4πρc2R3ϑ×ϑ×f(ω,y)e-iωcϑ,ydy, 14

defined for functions f:R×R3R3.

Polarized-sensitive OCT

We describe the standard PS-OCT system in the context of a Michelson interferometer first presented by Hee et al. (1992).

The detector array is given by D=R2×{d} with d>0 sufficiently large. Moreover, we specify the CIF function to be E0 as defined in Example 1 and we assume that E0(t,x)=0 for t0 and xD.

We describe now the change in the polarization state of the light through the PS-OCT system. The effect of the polarization-insensitive beam splitter (BS) is not considered in this work since it only reduces the intensity of the beam by a constant factor. For simplicity, we place the sample and the mirror around the origin and the detector at the BS, for more details see Elbau et al. (2015, Section 3.3). The BS splits the light into two identical beams entering both arms of the interferometer.

Reference arm:
The light (at some negative time) passes through a zero-order quarter-wave plate (QWP) oriented at angle ϕ1 to the incident linear polarization. It is reflected by a perfect mirror placed in x3=l and then passes through the QWP again, at time t=0, see the right picture in Fig. 2. We formulate this process as a linear operator
Jl[E0](t,x)=E0,ref(l;t,x), 15
to be specified later. Then, the reference field El takes the form
El(t,x)=E0(t,x)+E0,ref(l;t,x),ift>0,x3>lR,E0(t,x),ift0,x3>lR. 16
Sample arm:
The incoming light passes through a QWP (oriented at a different angle ϕ2) at some time t<0, placed in the plane given by the equation x3=lQ. This process results to a field
J[E0](t,x)=E0,inc(t,x), 17
that until t=0 does not interact with the medium, see the left picture in Fig. 2.
Detector:
The electric field E which is obtained by illuminating the sample with the incident field E0,inc is combined with the reference field El. We assume here that the backscattered light does not pass through the QWP again. At every point on the detector surface D we measure the two intensities (Elbau et al. 2015)
Ij(l,ξ)=0Ej(t,ξ)Ejl(t,ξ)dt,ξD,j{1,2}.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

The two scattering problems in PS-OCT. On the left picture the incoming light in the sample arm passes through a QWP and is incident on the medium. On the right picture, in the reference arm, the light is back-reflected by a mirror (passing twice a QWP)

We assume that we do not measure the incident fields at the detector, meaning E0(t,ξ)=E0,inc(t,ξ)=0 for t>0 and ξD and recalling (16) we obtain El-E0=0 for t0, resulting to

Ij(l,ξ)=0(Ej-Ej0,inc)(t,ξ)(Ejl-Ej0)(t,ξ)dt=R(Ej-Ej0,inc)(t,ξ)(Ejl-Ej0)(t,ξ)dt. 18

We use Plancherel’s theorem, and since ER3 it follows that E^(-ω,·)=E^¯(ω,·). Thus, the above formula can be rewritten as

Ij(l,ξ)=12πR(E^j-E^j0,inc)(ω,ξ)(E^jl-E^j0¯)(ω,ξ)dω=12π-0(E^j-E^j0,inc¯)(-ω,ξ)(E^jl-E^j0)(-ω,ξ)dω+12π0(E^j-E^j0,inc)(ω,ξ)(E^jl-E^j0¯)(ω,ξ)dω=1πR0(E^j-E^j0,inc)(ω,ξ)(E^jl-E^j0¯)(ω,ξ)dω. 19

Jones calculus

Here we describe the operators Jl and J, introduced in (15) and (17), respectively. We consider the fields in the frequency domain. Then, for positive frequencies we can apply the Jones matrix method (keeping also the zero third component of the fields) in order to model the effect of the QWP’s on the polarization state of light. We assume that the properties of the QWP’s are frequency independent and that the light is totally transmitted through the plate surface.

Definition 4

We define

Jl[v](ω,x)=J2(ϕ1)v(ω,x)eiωc2(x3-l),forω>0,J[v](ω,x)=J(ϕ2)v(ω,x),forω>0, 20

where

J(ϕ)=cosϕ-sinϕ0sinϕcosϕ00011000-i0001cosϕsinϕ0-sinϕcosϕ0001,

is the rotated Jones matrix for a QWP with the fast axis oriented at angle ϕ (Gerrard and Burch 1975).

The above definition summarizes what we described before: In the reference arm, the incoming field passes through the QWP (at angle ϕ1) is reflected by the mirror and then passes through the QWP again. The field travels additionally the distance 2(x3-l). In the sample arm, the field passes only through the QWP at angle ϕ2.

We consider the PS-OCT system, presented first by Hee et al. (1992) and then considered by Hitzenberger et al. (2001) and Schoenenberger et al. (1998), where ϕ1=π/8 and ϕ2=π/4. Then, we obtain

E^0,ref(l;ω,x)=Jl[E^0](ω,x)=ηf^(ω)eiωc(x3-2l),forω>0,E^0,inc(ω,x)=J[E^0](ω,x)=pf^(ω)e-iωcx3,forω>0, 21

where η=J2(π/8)q and p=J(π/4)q. We observe that E^0,ref is still linearly polarized at angle π/4 with the linear (horizontal or vertical) initial polarization state and E^0,inc describes a circularly polarized light.

Now we can define our approximated data. We approximate in (19) the term E^j-E^j0,inc by E^j2-E^j0,inc and for the term E^jl-E^j0 we consider (16) and (21).

Definition 5

We call

Ij2(l,ξ)=ηjπR0(E^j2-E^j0,inc)(ω,ξ)f^(-ω)eiωc(2l-ξ3)dω. 22

the second order approximated measurement data of OCT.

The inverse problem of recovering the susceptibility

The problem we address here, is to recover χ^ from the knowledge of I2(l,ξ) for lR,ξD. First, we show that the measurements provide us with expressions which depend on χ^ non-linearly.

Proposition 1

Let E0(t,x) be given by the form (6) with q3=0 and let the measurement data Ij2 be given by (22). Then, for every ωR+\{0} with f^(ω)0, the expression

ηjGχ^pe-iωcy3+G[χ^pe-iωcz3]j(ω,ρϑ)=1c|f^(ω)|2RIj2(l,ρϑ)e-iωc(2l-ρϑ3)dl 23

holds for all j{1,2}, and ϑS+2:={μS2μ3>0}.

Proof

We consider Eq. (13) where now E^i is replaced by E^0,inc for ω>0. Then, we get

(E^2-E^0,inc)(ω,ρϑ)=f^(ω)Gχ^pe-iωcy3+G[χ^pe-iωcz3](ω,ρϑ). 24

We apply the inverse Fourier transform with respect to l in (22), to obtain

RIj2(l,ξ)e-iω~c2ldl=cηj20(E^j2-E^j0,inc)(ω,ξ)f^(-ω)e-iωcξ3δ(ω-ω~)dω+cηj20(E^j2-E^j0,inc)(ω,ξ)f^(-ω)e-iωcξ3¯δ(ω+ω~)dω 25

which for ω~>0,f^0 and ηj0, using that E and f are real valued, results to

(E^j2-E^j0,inc)(ω,ξ)=1ηjcf^(-ω)RIj2(l,ξ)e-iωc(2l-ξ3)dl.

This identity together with (24), results asymptotically to (23).

We observe here that we want to reconstruct four four-dimensional functions from two three-dimensional measurement data. Thus, we have to consider some additional assumptions on the medium in order to cancel out the lack of dimensions and handle the non-linearity of (23) with respect to χ^.

Assumption 1

Specific illumination: The support of the initial pulse is small enough such that the optical parameters in this spectrum can be assumed constant with respect to frequency.

Medium: The susceptibility can be decomposed into two parts, a background susceptibility which is constant and assumed to be known and a part that counts for the local variations of the susceptibility and can be seen as deviation from the constant value.

Then, the expression (3) admits the special form

χ^(ω,x)=χ0+ϵψ(x),

where

χ0=χ0110110001,andψ=ψ11ψ120ψ12ψ22000ψ33,

for some known χ0R, a small parameter ϵ>0 and ψijCc(R3;C).

In the following, we consider this type of media, which is typical for biological tissues, and we assume in addition that the behavior of the homogeneous medium (ϵ=0) is known. Then, as a consequence, also the measured data from PS-OCT are known, let us call them I0, and we can assume the following form for the measurements

Ij2(l,ξ)=I0+ϵMj(l,ξ),lR,ξD,j{1,2}, 26

for some known functions Mj.

Proposition 2

Let the assumptions of Proposition 1 and the additional Assumption 1 hold. We define v=ωc(ϑ+e3),ϑS+2. Then, the spatial Fourier transform of the matrix-valued function ψ:R3C3×3, satisfies the equations

ηjϑ×ϑ×ψ~(v)+χ0K[ψ~](v)+K[ψ~](v)χ0pj=m~j(v),j{1,2}, 27

where

m~j(v):=mj(ω,ϑ)=-4πρcω2|f^(ω)|2RMj(l,ρϑ)e-iωc(2l-ρ(ϑ3-1))dl. 28

The operators K and K are defined by

K[f](v):=R3Kz(v;k)f(k)dk,K[f](v):=R3f(k)Ky(v;k)dk, 29

for functions f:R3C3×3, with kernels

Kα(ωc(ϑ+e3);k)=ω2c2(2π)3ΩΩG(ω,y-z)e-iωc(z3+ϑ,y)eik,αdzdy,

for α=z,y.

Proof

We substitute χ^, considering Assumption 1, and (26) in (23) and we equate the first order terms ψ and M to obtain

ηjGψpe-iωcy3+Gχ0pe-iωcz3j(ω,ρϑ)+ηjGχ0Gψpe-iωcz3j(ω,ρϑ)=1c|f^(ω)|2RMj(l,ρϑ)e-iωc(2l-ρϑ3)dl. 30

In order to analyse the left hand side of the above equation we consider the definition (14) and the analytic form (12). Then, we rewrite (30) as

ηjΩϑ×ϑ×ψ(y)pe-iωcϑ+e3,ydy+ω2c2ΩΩϑ×ϑ×χ0G(ω,y-z)ψ(z)pe-iωc(z3+ϑ,y)dzdy+ω2c2ΩΩϑ×ϑ×ψ(y)G(ω,y-z)χ0pe-iωc(z3+ϑ,y)dzdyj=mj(ω,ϑ),

where mj is given by (28). Taking the Fourier transform of ψ with respect to space, we get

ηjϑ×ϑ×ψ~(ωc(ϑ+e3))p+ω2c2(2π)3R3ΩΩϑ×ϑ×χ0G(ω,y-z)ψ~(k)p×e-iωc(z3+ϑ,y)eik,zdzdydk+ω2c2(2π)3R3ΩΩϑ×ϑ×ψ~(k)G(ω,y-z)χ0pe-iωc(z3+ϑ,y)×eik,ydzdydkj=mj(ω,ϑ). 31

This equation for m~(v):=m(ω,ϑ), using the definitions of the integral operators (29) admits the compact form (27).

Regarding the integral operators appearing in (29), we prove the following property.

Lemma 2

The integral operators K,K:(L2(Ω))3×3(L2(S2))3×3, defined by (29), are compact.

Proof

We consider the following decomposition

K[f](ωc(ϑ+e3))=ω2c2(2π)3R3ΩΩG(ω,y-z)×e-iωc(z3+ϑ,y)eik,zf~(k)dzdydk=ω2c2ΩΩG(ω,y-z)e-iωc(z3+ϑ,y)f(z)dzdy=Ωe-iωcϑ,yω2c21ΩG(ω,y-z)e-iωcz3f(z)dz+·ΩG(ω,y-z)e-iωcz3f(z)dzdy=Ωe-iωcϑ,yω2c21ΩG(ω,y-z)e-iωcz3f(z)dz+·ΩG(0,y-z)e-iωcz3f(z)dz+·ΩG(ω,y-z)-G(0,y-z)e-iωcz3f(z)dzdy.

The above expression in compact form reads

K[f](v)=F(G+G0+G1)[e-iωcz3f](v),

for the operators

F[f](θ):=Ωe-iωcϑ,yf(y)dy,G[f](x):=ω2c2ΩG(ω,x-y)f(y)dy,G0[f](x):=·ΩG(0,x-y)f(y)dy,G1[f](x):=·ΩG(ω,x-y)-G(0,x-y)f(y)dy.

The operator F:L2(Ω)L2(S2) is a modification of the usual far-field operator with smooth kernel, thus compact. The operators G:L2(Ω)L2(Ω) and G1:(L2(Ω))3×3(L2(Ω))3×3 are also compact due to their weakly singular kernels, see for instance (Colton and Kress 2013; Potthast 2000), and the operator G0:(L2(Ω))3×3(L2(Ω))3×3 is bounded (Colton et al. 2007). Thus K:(L2(Ω))3×3(L2(S2))3×3 is also compact. The same arguments hold also for the operator K.

Now, we are in position to formulate the inverse problem: Recover from the expressions

ηjϑ×ϑ×ψ~(v)+χ0K[ψ~](v)+K[ψ~](v)χ0pj,j{1,2},

the matrix-valued function ψ:ΩC3×3, assuming that we have measurements for every incident polarization.

Let us now specify the polarization vectors η and p. We choose two different incident polarization vectors q(1)=e1 and q(2)=e2, and using the formulas (21) we obtain the vectors

η(1)=22110,p(1)=121-i1+i0,η(2)=221-10,p(2)=121+i1-i0. 32

Remark 1

To find, for instance, the form of the incident wave p(1)f^(ω)e-iωcx3, for ω>0, in the time domain we have to extend it for negative frequencies and consider its inverse Fourier transform. Then, we have

E(1)(t,x)=:12π0p(1)f^(ω)e-iωcx3e-iωtdω+12π-0p(1)¯f^(ω)e-iωcx3e-iωtdω=12π0p(1)f^(ω)e-iωcx3e-iωtdω+12π0p(1)f^(ω)e-iωcx3e-iωt¯dω=1πR0p(1)f^(ω)e-iωcx3e-iωtdω

If the small spectrum is centered around a frequency ν, we approximate f^(ω)δ(ω-ν), for ω>0, to obtain

E(1)(t,x)=1πRp(1)e-iν(x3c+t)=12πcos(ν(x3c+t))-sin(ν(x3c+t))cos(ν(x3c+t))+sin(ν(x3c+t))0=12πcos(π4+ν(x3c+t))sin(π4+ν(x3c+t))0.

We see that E(1) describes also a circularly polarized wave with a phase shift.

If we neglect the zeroth third components, we observe that η(1),η(2)R2 and p(1),p(2)C2 form a basis in R2 and C2, respectively. The following result shows that measurements for additional polarization vectors q do not provide any further information.

Proposition 3

Let ϑS+2 be fixed and q=q(1),q(2). Then, the Eq. (27) is equivalent to the system of equations

PϑYp(1)1=b1(1),PϑYp(1)2=b2(1),PϑYp(2)1=b1(2),PϑYp(2)2=-b2(2), 33

where Y:=ψ~(v)+χ0K[ψ~](v)+K[ψ~](v)χ0,bj(k):=-2m~j(k),k,j=1,2, and Pϑ denotes the orthogonal projection in direction ϑ. The upper index on the data counts for the different incident polarizations.

Proof

We consider (q,j){(q(1),1),(q(1),2),(q(2),1),(q(2),2)}. Then, the system of Eq. (27) is equivalent to the four equations

η1(1)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(1))]1=m~1(1),η2(1)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(1))]2=m~2(1),η1(2)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(2))]1=m~1(2),η2(2)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(2))]2=m~2(2). 34

Indeed, for arbitrary polarization q=c1q(1)+c2q(2),c1,c2R the expression ηj[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp)]j can be written as a linear combination of the four expressions m~j(k),k,j=1,2:

η1[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp)]1=[c1η(1)+c2η(2)]1[ϑ×(ϑ×Y(c1p(1)+c2p(2)))]1=c12η1(1)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(1))]1+c1c2η1(1)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(2))]1+c1c2η1(2)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(1))]1+c22η1(2)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(2))]1=c12η1(1)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(1))]1+c1c2η1(2)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(2))]1+c1c2η1(1)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(1))]1+c22η1(2)[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp(2))]1=(c12+c1c2)m~1(1)+(c22+c1c2)m~1(2),

and similarly

η2[ϑ×(ϑ×Yp)]2=(c12-c1c2)m~2(1)+(c22-c1c2)m~2(2).

Decomposing Yp=ϑ,Ypϑ+PϑYp, where PϑR3×3 denotes the orthogonal projection in direction ϑ, and using that

ϑ×(ϑ×Yp)=ϑ×(ϑ×PϑYp)=ϑ,PϑYpϑ-PϑYp=-PϑYp,

the system of Eq. (34) considering (32) can be written in the form (33).

We see that Proposition 3, for Y(v)=ψ~(v)+χ0K[ψ~](v)+K[ψ~](v)χ0, where v=ωc(ϑ+e3),ϑS+2, shows that the data m~j(k)(v) for k,j=1,2 and two different polarization vectors q=e1 and q=e2 uniquely determine the projections [PϑYp(k)]j for k,j{1,2}.

Moreover, measurements for additional polarizations q do not provide any further informations so that at every detector point, corresponding to a direction ϑS+2, only the four elements [PϑYp(k)]j,k,j=1,2, of the projection influence the measurements.

Remark 2

In contrast to standard OCT where three polarization vectors were needed, see Elbau et al. (2015, Proposition 11), and to first order Born-approximation where Y=ψ~, as we are going to see in the following, the above measurements due to the special form of Y allow for reconstructing all the unknowns functions ψij.

Proposition 4

Let ϑS2:={μS2μ1μ2,μ3>0}. For two given incident polarisation vectors q(1) and q(2), the system of equations (33) is equivalent to a Fredholm type system of integral equations

(1+C)ψ~11ψ~12ψ~22=b, 35

for some compact operator C:(L2(Ω))3(L2(S2))3 and known right hand side b depending on the OCT data. Given the solution of (35), the component ψ~33 satisfies a Fredholm integral equation of the first kind

Cψ~33=b, 36

where C:L2(Ω)L2(S2) is a compact operator and b depends on the solution of (35).

Proof

In order to reformulate equations (33), first we consider an arbitrary vector p and we split the expression PϑYp into the sum

PϑYp=(1-ϑϑ)ψ~p+(1-ϑϑ)χ0K[ψ~]p+(1-ϑϑ)K[ψ~]χ0p, 37

omitting for simplicity the v dependence of the unknown ψ~.

The first term on the right hand side admits the decomposition

(1-ϑϑ)ψ~p=p1(1-ϑ12)-p1ϑ1ϑ2+p2(1-ϑ12)-p2ϑ1ϑ2-p1ϑ1ϑ2-p2ϑ1ϑ2+p1(1-ϑ22)p2(1-ϑ22)-p1ϑ1ϑ3-p1ϑ2ϑ3-p2ϑ1ϑ3-p2ϑ2ϑ3ψ~11ψ~12ψ~22,

where we observe the independence on ψ~33. To analyse the other two terms, we consider (29) and define the operators acting now on the components of the matrix-valued function f:

Kkj[f](v):=R3[Kz]kj(v;k)f(k)dk,Kkj[f](v):=R3[Ky]kj(v;k)f(k)dk,

for k,j=1,2,3. Since we are interested only in the first two components of PϑYp and the calculations are rather lengthy we are going to omit the third component in the following expressions. The second term on the right hand side of (37) reads

(1-ϑϑ)χ0K[ψ~]p=χ0p1L11p1L12+p2L11p2L12p1L21p1L22+p2L21p2L22ψ~11ψ~12ψ~22,

where

Lkj:=(1-ϑk2-ϑ1ϑ2)(K1j+K2j)-ϑkϑ3K3j,k,j=1,2.

The only term where ψ~33 appears is the last one (as expected), namely

(1-ϑϑ)K[ψ~]χ0p=χ0(p1+p2)×(1-ϑ12)M1-ϑ1ϑ2M1+(1-ϑ12)M2-ϑ1ϑ2M2-ϑ1ϑ3M3-ϑ1ϑ2M1(1-ϑ22)M1-ϑ1ϑ2M2(1-ϑ22)M2-ϑ2ϑ3M3×ψ~11ψ~12ψ~22ψ~33,

where

Mj:=Kj1+Kj2,j=1,2,3.

We can combine now all the above formulas to obtain

PϑYp=I(p)+χ0L(p)+χ0(p1+p2)My,

where

I(p)=p1(1-ϑ12)-p1ϑ1ϑ2+p2(1-ϑ12)-p2ϑ1ϑ20-p1ϑ1ϑ2-p2ϑ1ϑ2+p1(1-ϑ22)p2(1-ϑ22)0,L(p)=p1L11p1L12+p2L11p2L120p1L21p1L22+p2L21p2L220,M=(1-ϑ12)M1-ϑ1ϑ2M1+(1-ϑ12)M2-ϑ1ϑ2M2-ϑ1ϑ3M3-ϑ1ϑ2M1(1-ϑ22)M1-ϑ1ϑ2M2(1-ϑ22)M2-ϑ2ϑ3M3, 38

and y=ψ~11,ψ~12,ψ~22,ψ~33.

Then, the system of Eq. (33), considering (32) reads

[(I(p(1))+χ0L(p(1))+χ0M)y]1=b1(1), 39a
2=b2(1), 39b
1=b1(2), 39c
2=-b2(2). 39d

We observe that in all equations the coefficient in front of the operator M is the same, which is the only operator applying on the fourth component of y. In addition, from (38), we see that ϑ2M14=ϑ1M24. Thus, in order to eliminate y4 we reformulate the above system as follows: we subtract from Eq. (39a) the Eq. (39c), from Eq. (39b) the Eq. (39d) and from ϑ2· (39a) the equation ϑ1· (39b), resulting to

[(I(p(1)-p(2))+χ0L(p(1)-p(2)))y]1=b1(1)-b1(2),[(I(p(1)-p(2))+χ0L(p(1)-p(2)))y]2=b2(1)+b2(2),ϑ2[(I(p(1))+χ0L(p(1))+χ0M)y]1-ϑ1[(I(p(1))+χ0L(p(1))+χ0M)y]2=ϑ2b1(1)-ϑ1b2(1).

The above system in compact form reads

(I~+N)y~=b~, 40

where

I~=i22(ϑ12-1)2(1+ϑ1ϑ2-ϑ12)-2ϑ1ϑ22ϑ1ϑ22(ϑ22-ϑ1ϑ2-1)2(1-ϑ22)-ϑ2(1+i)ϑ1(i+1)+ϑ2(1-i)-ϑ1(1-i),N=iχ0-L11L11-L12L12-L21L21-L22L22N1N2N3,y~=y1y2y3,b~=b1(1)-b1(2)b2(1)+b2(2)ϑ2b1(1)-ϑ1b2(1),

and

N1:=12[(1+i)(ϑ1ϑ2L21-ϑ22L11)-2iϑ2M1],N2:=12[(1-i)(ϑ22L11-ϑ1ϑ2L21)-(1+i)(ϑ22L12-ϑ1ϑ2L22)-2iϑ2M2+2iϑ1M1],N3:=12[(1-i)(ϑ22L12-ϑ1ϑ2L22)+2iϑ1M2].

We compute the determinant of I~ which is given by

det(I~)=-i8-ϑ13+ϑ12ϑ2-ϑ1ϑ22+ϑ1+ϑ23-ϑ2=-i8(ϑ2-ϑ1)(ϑ12+ϑ22-1).

Recall that ϑS+2, meaning ϑ3>0. Then, if in addition we impose that ϑ1ϑ2 for all ϑS+2, the matrix I~ is invertible with I~-1=det(I~)-1adj(I~). Then, Eq. (40) can be written in the form

(1+I~-1N)y~=I~-1b~, 41

which is the Fredholm integral equation of the second kind (35), for C:=I~-1N, and b:=I~-1b~. Once (41) is solved for y1,y2 and y3 we can choose one of the four equations from the system (39) resulting to a Fredholm integral equation of the first kind for the unknown y4 now:

M3y4=b,

for some known function b,  depending on y~ and b~. This is Eq. (36) for C:=M3.

The compactness of the integral operators C and C follows from the compactness of the operators K and K, see Lemma 2, since they are operators that act on the components of the matrix-valued function.

Remark 3

Equation (36) reflects the ill-posedness of the inverse problem, due to the compactness of the integral operator.

Conclusions

In this work we have formulated the inverse problem of recovering the electric susceptibility of a non-magnetic, inhomogeneous orthotropic medium, placed in a polarized-sensitive optical coherence tomograph (PS-OCT) as a system of Fredholm integral equations (both of first and second kind). Under the assumptions of a non-dispersive, weakly scattering medium with small background variations we have shown that we can reconstruct all the coefficients of the matrix-valued susceptibility, given the data for two different incident polarization vectors. This paper can be seen, on one hand, as a first attempt to model mathematically PS-OCT and on the other hand, as a theoretical basis for an upcoming paper where the numerical validation of the proposed method will be examined.

Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by Austrian Science Fund (FWF). The work of OS has been supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Project P26687-N25 (Interdisciplinary Coupled Physics Imaging).

Contributor Information

Peter Elbau, Email: peter.elbau@univie.ac.at.

Leonidas Mindrinos, Email: leonidas.mindrinos@univie.ac.at.

Otmar Scherzer, Email: otmar.scherzer@univie.ac.at.

References

  1. Beker B, Umashankar KR. Analysis of electromagnetic scattering by arbitrarily shaped two-dimensional anisotropic objects: combined field surface integral equation formulation. Electromagnetics. 1989;9(2):215–229. doi: 10.1080/02726348908915235. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bouma BE, Tearney GJ. Handbook of Optical Coherence Tomography. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cakoni F, Colton D. A Qualitative Approach to Inverse Scattering Theory. New York: Springer; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cakoni F, Haddar H. A variational approach for the solution of the electromagnetic interior transmission problem for anisotropic media. Inverse Probl. Imaging. 2007;1(3):443–456. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.443. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cakoni F, Colton D, Monk P, Sun J. The inverse electromagnetic scattering problem for anisotropic media. Inverse Probl. 2010;26(7):074004. doi: 10.1088/0266-5611/26/7/074004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chew W. Waves and Fields in Inhomogeneous Media. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  7. Colton, D., Kress, R.: Inverse Acoustic and Electromagnetic Scattering Theory, 3rd edn. No. 93 in Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer, Berlin (2013)
  8. Colton D, Kress R, Monk P. Inverse scattering from an orthotropic medium. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 1997;81(2):269–298. doi: 10.1016/S0377-0427(97)00065-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Colton D, Päivärinta L, Sylvester J. The interior transmission problem. Inverse Probl. Imaging. 2007;1(1):13–28. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2007.1.13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. de Boer JF, Milner TE, Gemert MJC, Nelson JS. Two-dimensional birefringence imaging in biological tissue by polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography. Opt. Lett. 1997;22:934–936. doi: 10.1364/OL.22.000934. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. de Boer JF, Srinivas SM, Malekafzali A, Chen Z, Nelson JS. Imaging thermally damaged tissue by polarization sensitive optical coherence tomography. Opt. Express. 1998;3:212–218. doi: 10.1364/OE.3.000212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Drexler W, Fujimoto JG. Optical Coherence Tomography: Technology and Applications. 2. New York: Springer; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  13. Elbau P, Mindrinos L, Scherzer O. Mathematical methods of optical coherence tomography. In: Scherzer O, editor. Handbook of Mathematical Methods in Imaging. New York: Springer; 2015. pp. 1169–1204. [Google Scholar]
  14. Geng YL, Wu XB, Li LW. Analysis of electromagnetic scattering by a plasma anisotropic sphere. Radio Sci. 2003;38(6):1104–1116. doi: 10.1029/2003RS002913. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gerrard A, Burch JM. Introduction to Matrix Methods in Optics. New York: Dover; 1975. [Google Scholar]
  16. Graglia RD, Uslenghi PLE. Electromagnetic scattering from anisotropic material part i: general theory. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 1984;32(8):867–869. doi: 10.1109/TAP.1984.1143422. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Haddar H. The interior transmission problem for anisotropic Maxwell’s equations and its applications to the inverse problem. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 2004;27:2111–2129. doi: 10.1002/mma.465. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hazard C, Lenoir M. On the solution of time-harmonic scattering problems for Maxwell’s equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 1996;27(6):1597–1630. doi: 10.1137/S0036141094271259. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hee MR, Huang D, Swanson EA, Fujimoto JG. Polarization-sensitive low-coherence reflectometer for birefringence characterization and ranging. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B. 1992;9(6):903–908. doi: 10.1364/JOSAB.9.000903. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hitzenberger CK, Götzinger E, Sticker M, Pircher M, Fercher AF. Measurement and imaging of birefringence and optic axis orientation by phase resolved polarization sensitive optical coherence tomography. Opt. Express. 2001;9(13):780–790. doi: 10.1364/OE.9.000780. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jiao S, Wang LV. Two-dimensional depth-resolved mueller matrix of biological tissue measured with double-beam polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography. Opt. Lett. 2002;27(2):101–103. doi: 10.1364/OL.27.000101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Papadakis SN, Uzunoglou NK, Capsalis CN. Scattering of a plane wave by a general anisotropic dielectric ellipsoid. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A. 1990;7(6):991–997. doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.7.000991. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Papoulis A. The Fourier Integral and Its Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1962. [Google Scholar]
  24. Potthast R. Electromagnetic scattering from an orthotropic medium. J. Integr. Equ. Appl. 1999;11:197–215. doi: 10.1216/jiea/1181074315. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Potthast R. Integral equation methods in electromagnetic scattering from anisotropic media. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 2000;23:1145–1159. doi: 10.1002/1099-1476(20000910)23:13&#x0003c;1145::AID-MMA156&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-R. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Schoenenberger K, Colston BW, Maitland DJ, Da Silva LB, Everett MJ. Mapping of birefringence and thermal damage in tissue by use of polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography. Appl. Opt. 1998;37(25):6026–6036. doi: 10.1364/AO.37.006026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Torquato S. Random Heterogeneous Materials. Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics. New York: Springer; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wolf E, Foley JT. Scattering of electromagnetic fields of any state of coherence from space–time fluctuations. Phys. Rev. A. 1989;40:579–587. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Gem are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES