2021
DOI: 10.1364/ao.411625
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of different calibration methods for Mueller matrix microscopy of cells

Abstract: Mueller matrix (MM) imaging has demonstrated its potential application in much research, especially in probing delicate and complex biomedical specimens. Qualities of MM images are important for further quantitative characterization. In this paper, we compare the performance and imaging qualities of three calibration methods. Air, waveplate and cell specimen are selected as standard samples for comparison. In addition, we also propose two general MM imaging quality indices that can be used as quantitative eval… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is capable of taking a Mueller matrix image in about 3 min with less than 0.02 average root mean square error (RMSE) using standard samples including air, linear polarizer, and waveplate. Details for optimization and calibration of the microscope can be found in previous studies 10 , 23 25 . A small number of samples were imaged by an upgraded MMM 26 whose polarization state analyzer and 2D detector were replaced by two 2048 × 2448 pixels 16-bit division of focal plane (DoFP) polarimeters (PHX050S-PC, Lucid Vision Labs Inc., Canada).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is capable of taking a Mueller matrix image in about 3 min with less than 0.02 average root mean square error (RMSE) using standard samples including air, linear polarizer, and waveplate. Details for optimization and calibration of the microscope can be found in previous studies 10 , 23 25 . A small number of samples were imaged by an upgraded MMM 26 whose polarization state analyzer and 2D detector were replaced by two 2048 × 2448 pixels 16-bit division of focal plane (DoFP) polarimeters (PHX050S-PC, Lucid Vision Labs Inc., Canada).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…( 1)-( 2), where DoFP, L2, P, and L 1 represent the 3×3 MMs of the corresponding optical elements mentioned above. The optical elements were individually calibrated using a polarimeter (PAX1000, Thorlabs, United States) in a step-by-step manner before taking measurements, guaranteeing that the system errors were maintained below 1% 29,30 . To mitigate the system errors, we acquired a total of three grayscale frames per second to calculate the mean values 31 .…”
Section: Experimental Setup and Tissue Samplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…These linear equation expression of the relation between the measurement signal vector D and the ellipsometric parameter (Mueller matrix elements) vector M by the OCD system matrix C, are not only applied to SIPE system but also can be generally applied to any conventional OCD systems. 27,28 Without objective lens error : 𝑫 𝒕 = 𝑪 𝒕 𝑴 (6) With objective lens error : 𝑫 𝒆 = 𝑪 𝒆 𝑴 (7) The goal of our method is to make the measured erroneous signal 𝑫 𝒆 to the errorless signal 𝑫 𝒕 by using the previously calibrated objective lens error 𝑪 𝒆 . For the objective lens polarization error, we use a linear transformation F such that satisfies the following condition:…”
Section: Ellipsometric Errors Of the Objective Lensmentioning
confidence: 99%