Validation study demonstrates accurate dual-modal registration across switching media in phantoms, highlighting reproducible large-field photoacoustic and optical coherence tomography alignment.
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and photoacoustic imaging (PAI) provide complementary structural and absorption contrasts but require different coupling conditions: 1310 nm swept-source OCT is attenuated by water, whereas PAI requires acoustic coupling. We developed a large-field dual-modal imaging system combining temporal medium separation with hardware-based coordinate locking. The OCT head, linear-array ultrasound transducer, and photoacoustic excitation fiber bundle were mounted on a rigid common platform, and a one-time calibration established a two-dimensional affine transformation between the modality coordinate systems. OCT was acquired in air and PAI in deionized water within a common large-field coordinate range. In five paired air–water measurements with an approximately 23 mm water path, the displayed OCT peak level decreased from 98.4 ± 1.5 dB in air to 79.4 ± 1.8 dB in water, corresponding to a mean reduction of 19.0 ± 1.4 dB. Quantitative registration was evaluated using a 5 × 5 dual-modal landmark phantom, with nine landmarks used for affine calibration and 16 excluded landmarks reserved for independent validation. The mean two-dimensional validation error was 0.235 ± 0.128 mm, with an RMSE of 0.266 mm and a maximum error of 0.446 mm. Five additional medium-switching cycles performed without recalibration yielded an overall registration error of 0.369 ± 0.163 mm across 80 validation measurements. PA spatial resolution was further characterized using six thin hair targets, yielding lateral and axial FWHM values of 0.342 ± 0.069 mm and 0.394 ± 0.073 mm, respectively. These results demonstrate reproducible two-dimensional en face OCT–PA coordinate mapping under modality-specific coupling conditions and support the proposed workflow as a phantom-based technical validation for large-field multimodal imaging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: