Fig 1.
Illustrates the modeling approach in this work and the different arrangements of source and detector in XY-plane.
(a), (b), (c), and (d) represent the configuration of the SD in four different modes (HD-DOT, Arrangement-1, Arrangement-2, and MDMD topology). (e) Block diagram of analytical simulation setup.
Fig 2.
(a), (b), (c), and (d) indicate the SD location, number of channels, number of distinct directions, and distance in XY-plane for HD-DOT, arrangement-1, arrangement-2, and MDMD respectively.
Fig 3.
Location of SD in Cartesian coordinates on the surface of slab geometry and nine perturbed inclusion inside it.
Fig 4.
The contrast (δRa(ρj)⁄R0(ρj)) in XZ-plane for SD separation from 10mm to 60mm.
Fig 5.
Changes in synthetic oxyhemoglobin (Δ(HbO2)) and deoxyhemoglobin (Δ(Hb)).
Fig 6.
Visual comparison between reconstructed and synthetic hemodynamics for S5.
Fig 7.
Depicts the performance assessment of different SD arrangements in hemodynamic extraction of the S5 region concerning the regularization parameter.
Fig 8.
Indicates the similarity of all reconstructed and synthetic hemodynamic in S1-S9 region for HD-DOT, Arrangement-1, Arrangement-2 and MDMD.
Fig 9.
Represents the number of unique elements in the Jacobian matrix regarding the SD topology.
Table 1.
Summarized the details and the performance of all SD topologies studied in this investigation.
Fig 10.
Singular value spectra for Jacobian matrix of HD-DOT, MDMD, Arrangement-1 and 2.
Fig 11.
Represents the depth sensitivity of the analytical pDE in slab medium and depth sensitivity of the regression of MC on Colin 27 geometry for SD separation of 10mm-60mm.
Fig 12.
(a) Illustrates the geometry of the Slab medium which is 120mm × 120mm × 40mm. (b) represents the mesh of the medium.
Fig 13.
Demonstrates the effect of noise on performance assessment of different SD arrangements in hemodynamic extraction of the S5 region concerning the regularization parameter.
Fig 14.
(a) Represents the ability of hemodynamic extraction from the S5-region concerning several SNRs. (b) illustrates that in the worst case condition (SNR = 32 dB), the optimum point for ϵ has changed from 10−5 to 10−4. (c) and (d) Represents reconstructed and synthetic ΔHbO2 and ΔHb for MDMD and HD-DOT respectively.
Fig 15.
(a) Represents Gaussian distribution (mean = 1 and δ = 0.07) of Rnd matrix elements. (b) Boxplot regarding random coefficients. (c) Represents Gaussian distribution (mean = 1 and δ = 0.2) of Rnd matrix elements. (d) Boxplot regarding random coefficients.