Mr. Kai Pisila Profile

Kai Pisila

SPIE Involvement:

Author

Publications (1)

This will count as one of your downloads.

You will have access to both the presentation and article (if available).

DOWNLOAD NOW

This content is available for download via your institution's subscription. To access this item, please sign in to your personal account.

Email or Username Forgot your username?

Password Forgot your password?

Show

Keep me signed in

No SPIE account? Create an account

Proceedings Article | 20 February 2020 Presentation + Paper

Digital holographic microscopy (DHM) and transport of intensity (TIE) phase imaging of live cells

Shane Carney, Ting Chean Khoo, Jeremy Wittkopp, Kai Pisila, Georgios Athanassiadis, Anna Sharikova, Alexander Khmaladze, Jonathan Petruccelli

Proceedings Volume 11251, 1125122 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2547934

KEYWORDS: Digital holography, Phase imaging, Holography, Microscopy, Diffraction, Microscopes

Read Abstract +

Quantitative phase imaging (QPI) provides a label free method for imaging live cells and allows quantitative estimates of cell volume. Because the phase of light is not directly measurable at an imaging sensor, QPI techniques involve both hardware and software steps to reconstruct the phase. Digital holographic microscopy (DHM) is a QPI technique that utilizes an interferometer to combine a reference beam with a beam that passes through a specimen. This produces an interference pattern on the image sensor, and the specimen’s phase can be reconstructed using diffraction algorithms. One limitation of DHM is that the images are subject to coherent diffraction artifacts. Transport of intensity (TIE) method, on the other hand, uses the fact that defocused images of a specimen depend on the specimen’s phase to determine the phase from two or more defocused images. Its benefit over DHM is that it is compatible with conventional bright field imaging using sources of relatively low coherence. Although QPI methods can be compared on a variety of static phase targets, these largely consist of phase steps rather than the phase gradients present across cells. In order to compare the QPI methods described above on live cells, rapid switching between QPI modalities is required. We present results comparing DHM and TIE on a custom-built microscope system that allows both techniques to be used on the same cells in rapid succession, which allows the comparison of the accuracy of both measurements.

My Library

You currently do not have any folders to save your paper to! Create a new folder below.

Folder Name

Folder Description

View contact details

UPDATE YOUR PROFILE

Is this your profile? Update it now.

Sign into your SPIE.org account

Don’t have a profile and want one?

Create an account on SPIE.org

Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks. You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*

*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please sign in to access your institution's subscriptions.

To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on SPIE.org.

ORGANIZATIONAL
Sign in with credentials provided by your organization.

Organizational Username

Organizational Password

Show/Hide Password

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available

Members:

Non-members: ADD TO CART

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years