IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL 7.

NO I , MARCH 1988 59

A Hankel Transform Approach to Tomographic

Image Reconstruction

Abstract-We develop a relatively unexplored algorithm for recon- quantity and let FR( U , V ) be its Fourier transform:
structing a two-dimensional image from a finite set of its sampled pro-
jections. The algorithm, which we refer to as the Hankel-transform re-
construction (HTR) algorithm, is polar-coordinate based. The algo-
rithm expands the polar-form Fourier transform F ( r , 0 ) of an image
into a Fourier series in 0; calculates the appropriately ordered Hankel
transform of the coefficients of this series, giving the coefficients for the
Fourier series of the polar-form image f( p , 6);resolves this series, The polar-coordinate analog of (1) is
giving a polar-form reconstruction; and finally, if desired, interpolates
this reconstruction to a rectilinear grid. We outline the HTR algorithm
and show that its performance can compare favorably to the popular
convolution-backprojection algorithm.
(2)
where p and r are radial variables and 4 and e are angular
I. INTRODUCTION variables. Both fR( U , U ) and f ( p , 4 ) refer to the same
two-dimensional quantity-we will refer to this quantity

T HE problem of reconstructing a multidimensional ob-

ject from a set of its projections arises in, among other
fields, computer-aided tomography (CAT), radio astron-
as an image.
The projection of f R at the angle 8 , p s ( r ) , is given by
the Radon transform [2], [6]
omy, electron microscopy, and spotlight-mode synthetic
j
03

aperture radar (spotlight-mode SAR) [ 11-[ 171. In CAT, pe(t)= f R ( t cos e -y sin 8, t sin e + y cos e) dy.
the object frequently is a two-dimensional slice of the hu- -w

man body. In spotlight-mode SAR, the object typically is

a patch of terrain. (3)
Both digital [ 11-[23] and optical [24]-[26] reconstruc- By the projection-slice theorem [81, the one-dimensional
tion techniques exist. In this paper, we concentrate on Fourier transform of the projection p e ( t ) , which is given
digital algorithms for reconstructing a two-dimensional by
quantity from its one-dimensional projections. In partic-
ular, we develop a relatively unexplored algorithm that
draws upon Hankel transforms [13]-[15], 1271, [28] and
Po(r)= 1m

compare it to the well-known convolution-backprojection
algorithm [3]-[9].
For notational consistency, quantities with the sub-
script R are in rectilinear coordinates; those without the
subscript are in polar coordinates. Also, quantities de-
noted by capital letters are in the Fourier domain; those
denoted by small letters are in either the spatial domain
or projection domain. Other notations will be described
as they arise.
Let f R( U , U ) denote the intensity of a two-dimensional
Manuscript received August 18, 1986; revised September 25, 1987. This
work was supported by the Joint Services Electronics Program under Con-
tract N00014-79-(2-0424 and by a fellowship from the Shell Oil Company.
W. E. Higgins is with the Biodynamics Research Unit, Mayo Clinic,
Rochester, MN 55905.
D. C. Munson, Jr. is with the Coordinated Science Laboratory and the
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illi-
nois, Urbana, IL 61801.
IEEE Log Number 8718245.
-w
pe(t)e-'" dt, (4 1
equals the central slice at angle 8 of the two-dimensional
Fourier transform Of&, i.e.,
~ ~ (= r~ ), ( COS
r e, r sin e) = ~ ( re ,) . (5)
Theoretically, if all of the projections pe ( t ) or if all of
e)
the slices of the Fourier transform F ( r, were available,
then we could reconstruct fR exactly 121, [6], [8], [29]. In
practice, however, one of two situations usually exists.
1) Only a finite set of sampled projections are available
(as in X-ray CAT [1]-[7], [9]).
2) Only a finite set of sampled slices of the Fourier
transform are available (as in nuclear-magnetic-resonance
CAT and spotlight-mode SAR [lo], 1161, 1171); this sit-
uation corresponds to having a set of samples of the Fou-
rier transform on a polar grid.
Unfortunately, neither of these sets guarantees a unique
reconstruction under practical circumstances [6], [29]. In
fact, Smith et al. go so far as to say that a finite set of

0278-0062/88/0300-0059$01.OO @ 1988 IEEE

60
projections says nothing at all about f R [30]. Also, Sanz
has shown that no strategy exists for sampling a general,
bandlimited, two-dimensional signal on a polar grid so
that the samples uniquely specify the signal [3 11. By mak-
ing appropriate assumptions of f R , though, many algo-
rithms exist that are capable of using either set of data and
that can generate a good estimate offR.
In this work, we refer to any estimate offR generated
by some algorithm as a reconstruction of f R . Also, we
assume that we start with a set of sampled projections and
that we reconstruct fR on a discrete rectilinear grid. Be-
cause of the projection-slice theorem ( 5 ) and the neces-
sary bandlimitedness constraints invoked by any sampled-
data formulation, data sets 1) and 2) above are nearly in-
terchangeable.
Two criteria influence the usefulness of a particular im-
age reconstruction algorithm:
1) the quality of reconstructions it gives,
2) the complexity of the algorithms implementation.
Many algorithms that trade off these factors have been
proposed. While the quality of the reconstructions tends
to be the overriding factor, an algorithms complexity,
which encompasses the computational and storage re-
quirements, does become a major consideration in situa-
tions involving large data arrays.
Since the algorithms we consider in this paper demand
similar memory requirements, we assume that the com-
plexity of an algorithms implementation depends primar-
ily on the algorithms computational requirements.
Three major classes of digital image-reconstruction al-
gorithms have been studied by researchers previously:
1) direct Fourier techniques,
2) algebraic reconstruction techniques,
3) the convolution-backprojection (CBP) algorithm.
(Other approaches exist that are variations on the above
113, [51, [61, [181, [23l.)
The direct Fourier techniques reconstruct fR in three
steps: 1) compute the set of sampled slices of the Fourier
transform from the projections, 2) interpolate the known
polar-grid Fourier transform samples to a rectilinear grid,
and 3) perform an inverse two-dimensional fast Fourier
transform (FFT) on the rectilinear-grid samples [8], [ 121,
[22], [23]. Step 1) is, of course, unnecessary if slices of
the Fourier transform are given. Many options exist for
performing the interpolation of step 2). Stark et al. have
demonstrated an approach that gives reconstructions ap-
proaching the quality of those made with the CBP algo-
rithm and that takes between U ( N 2 log2 N ) and U ( N 3 )
computations for an N x N reconstruction [22].
The algebraic reconstruction techniques reconstruct fR
by iteratively solving a set of linear equations [4], [6],
[ 181-[2 13. These equations relate the available set of sam-
pled projections to the desired discrete reconstruction grid.
The reconstructions from this class of algorithms tend not
While both the direct Fourier techniques and the CBP algorithm arise
from the projection-slice theorem, their implementations differ greatly [8].
Thus, we consider them to be two different classes of algorithms.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 7, NO. 1, MARCH 1988
to compare favorably to those of the CBP algorithm [4],
[6]. Also, they typically require several iterations to gen-
erate an acceptable reconstruction, each iteration taking
roughly the computation of the CBP algorithm [6].
The CBP algorithm, probably the most popular algo-
rithm in CAT, first Fourier transforms the projections and
then essentially applies a discrete version of the inverse,
polar-form, two-dimensional Fourier transform to these
computed samples [ 11-[9] .2 Experimental results show
that it tends to give better reconstructions than the other
approaches, but that it takes U ( N 3 )operations for an N
X N reconstruction [22].
(As Herman and Rowland warn, however, any rea-
sonable algorithm can give the best reconstructions
relative to other algorithms, provided that the conditions
are right [20]. Also, quality of reconstruction is a
hard criterion to quantify. Measures of quality, such as
mean-squared error, average error, or maximum error,
cannot adequately capture quality as the human brain per-
ceives it [20] .)
The CBP algorithm, being polar-coordinate based, can
perform a direct Fourier inversion on the polar-grid Fou-
rier-transform samples of f R . The direct Fourier tech-
niques, on the other hand, first interpolate the polar-grid
Fourier-transform samples to a rectilinear grid and then
perform the inversion. Since each interpolated Fourier-
transform sample contributes to every point in the recon-
struction and since interpolation introduces error, each in-
terpolated Fourier-transform sample introduces error into
every point in the reconstruction. Using the polar-grid
samples directly intuitively seems to exploit the given in-
formation better.
An algorithm for computing general integer-order Han-
kel transforms, described in [32], makes another digital
image-reconstruction algorithm which we will refer to as
the Hankel-transform reconstruction (HTR) algorithm,
computationally viable. The HTR algorithm, being polar-
coordinate based, also can use the polar-grid Fourier-
transform samples directly. It expands the Fourier trans-
form into a Fourier series and then performs a series of
appropriate-order Hankel transforms on the coefficients of
this series to give a set of coefficients of a Fourier series
for the reconstructed image. Resolving this second Fou-
rier series gives a polar-form reconstruction, which can
be interpolated to a rectilinear grid.
The HTR algorithm has previously been studied by
Klug et al. for the reconstruction of viruses (three-dimen-
sional structures) from electron micrographs [ 131-[ 151.
However, the structures that Klug et al. tried to recon-
struct possessed a great deal of symmetry. Hence, not only
did they not have to compute a series of Hankel trans-
forms-a computationally demanding operation-but they
also did not need a large set of projections to make a re-
construction.
Norton considered a Hankel-transform-based approach
*Some implementations of the CBP algorithm do not Fourier transform
the projections per se, but their net overall operations are equivalent [3].
 -

HIGGINS AND MUNSON: HANKEL TRANSFORM APPROACH TO IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION 61

to reconstructing the acoustic reflectivity of an object, Further, f( p , 4), being periodic in 4 with period 2 n , can
given measurements of echoes of an active acoustic ele- also be expanded into a Fourier series:
ment [27]. The measurements represent line integrals
(projections) of the acoustic echoes on concentric arcs
about the source of the active element. Because we con-
sider the case where the projections are computed on lin-
ear contours [see (3)], the mathematical formulation of
our problem differs considerably from Norton's.
Finally, Shenberg and Macovski applied an approach where, analogous to (7),
drawing upon Hankel transforms to a magnetic-resonance
imaging system [28]. They were interested in reconstruc-
ting a 2-D image from samples of a time-varying mag-
netization signal. Again, their application has a consid-
erably different mathematical formulation from our prob- (Excuse the awkward angular coordinate (( n / 2 ) - 4 )
lem (they, for example, do not strictly require collecting used forf( p , ) in (8) and (9) for the time being.)
multiple projections). It can be shown that the inverse two-dimensional Fou-
For the general scenario, we consider, where no sym- rier transform of each term F,,( r ) e-'"" in ( 6 ) is given by
metry exists in the object of interest and a complete series
C331
of projections ( t ) spanning 8 over [0, n) is needed, no
general study of the HTR algorithm as a digital image
reconstruction algorithm has been done.
In this paper, we develop the HTR algorithm as a gen-
eral digital image reconstruction algorithm and compare
it to the CBP algorithm. Since both the HTR and CBP
algorithms are polar-coordinate based and arise from the and that f n ( p ) may be written as the nth-order Hankel
projection-slice theorem, a comparison of the two ap- transform of F, ( r ) :
proaches is enlightening.
The remainder of this paper takes the following form.
Section I1 outlines the theory underlying the HTR algo-
rithm. Section I11 describes a discrete implementation of
the theoretical relations defining the HTR algorithm. Sec-
tion IV describes the errors arising in the algorithm and
discusses some practical considerations. Section V pro- F-' { * } denotes the inverse two-dimensional Fourier
vides computational examples that test the importance of transformation (2) and J , ( ) is the n th-order Bessel func-
certain parameters in the HTR algorithm and that also test tion of the first kind.
the HTR algorithm's response to noisy input projections. Thus, the Fourier series for the Fourier transform F ( r ,
These examples also demonstrate that the HTR algorithm 8 ) and the imagef( p , (7r/2) - 4 ) are linked through
can compare favorably, both in the quality of the recon- their coefficients by the equivalent relations (10) and (1 1).
structions and in the amount of computation, to the CBP We shall use (11) which states that the n th Fourier-series
algorithm. Finally, Section VI offers some concluding coefficient for f( p , ( n / 2 ) - 4 ) equals the n th-order
comments. Hankel transform of the n th Fourier-series coefficient of
F ( r , 0).
Given that we start with projections P e ( t ) , (4),(5), (7),
11. UNDERLYING
THEORYOF THE HTR ALGORITHM (8), and (1 1) make up the basic HTR algorithm.
Note that the desired reconstruction is f ( p , e ) , which
The Fourier transform F ( r , e ) , being periodic in 0 with can also be written as
period 2 n , can be expanded into a Fourier series in 8:

while (8) gives

The Fourier-series coefficients F, ( r ) are given by the
standard relation [33]

(7)
62 IBEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING. VOL. 7. NO. I. MARCH 1988

The discrepancy (12) is easily accounted for by properly plete range of 0 over [0, a ) (equally spaced in e), is avail-
interpreting the reconstruction from (8) (i.e., merely in- able.
terchange the U , U coordinates-see Section III).3 2) Each projection is of finite extent in t , uniformly
We will assume that f ( p , 4 ) [analogously f( p , ( ~ / 2 ) sampled in t , and spans the width of the image. Thus, if
- 4 ) ] is real, as would be the case in X-ray CAT. Then the image lies completely within a square of width W ,
from (9), then each projection covers values of t over a range of
length & W .
fn(p) =f*n(p), n = 0 , 1, * * * (13) 3) The final reconstruction of fR(U, v ) conforms to a
where ()* denotes the complex conjugate. Thus, we need discrete rectilinear grid. Note that this assumption im-
only compute thef,( p ) for n I0. Further, because f is plicitly places a support limit on F R ( U , V ) [or F( r, e)],
real, (1) implies that i.e.,
FR( -U, -V) = Fz( U, V ) F R ( ~V, ) 0, [U(, >R
or in polar-coordinate form,
where R 5 a / A u ( A u and A v are the U and v sample
F(r, e ) = F*(r, e + T). (14) spacings and A u = A V ) . The discrete implementation re-
Equation (14) simplifies the discrete implementations of quires five steps. Below, these are summarized.
(4) and (7) since only values of F ( r, e ) ranging from 0 1) Compute sampled slices of the Fourier transform
to a need to be considered. F ( r , e), using a discrete form of (4)-(5).
In the discrete implementation, we will not use (1 1) di- Computing these slices is straightforward and can be
rectly to compute the coefficients fn( p ) . Instead, we will done using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) 1361.
use the relations derived in 1321 2) Compute the set of coeficients F,, ( r ) , using discrete
forms of (7)and (14).
Note that the computed slices of F ( r, e ) span 8 from
0 to T [per assumption l)]. Thus, (14) implies that
only samples of F( r, 0 ) corresponding to r I0 need
$
m
be retained for this step. The discrete analog of (7)
+,,(q) = ) r l F,,(r)e"" dr (16)
-m used here can also be computed with an FFT.
3) Evaluate the appropriate order Hankel transform for
12ST'*0
a,,(p sin 'k) Re [e-'"'] d ' k ,
each F,, (r)-this gives the coe8cient.s f,,( p ) ; use discrete
forms of (15)-(17).
Computing a coefficientf, ( p ) is a two-step process:
n even (17) a) computing samples of +,,(v), and b) using the
samples of +,,(q) in a discrete form of (17) to get
+,( p sin 'k) Im [e-'"'] d'k, f , ( p ) . Reference [32] gives a detailed discussion of
a discrete algorithm for computing the f,( p ) . We
[ n odd point out that the I r 1 function in (16) requires spe-
to compute the f n ( p ) . Relations (15)-(17) avoid the Bes- cial attention, particularly for n = 0-not handling
se1 functions present in (1 1) and result in a computation- the I r I function judiciously results in severe dc shifts
ally efficient procedure for computing thef, ( p ) [32]. The in reconstructed images 13.51. Note that to compute
f n ( p ) with a discrete form of (17) requires interpo-
next section discusses implementation of (4), (3,(7), (8),
and (13)-(17). lation in q of the samples of +,,(q) 1321. Also, in
view of (13), only thef, ( p ) for n I0 need be com-
111. DISCRETE IMPLEMENTATION puted. Further, f n ( p ) need only be computed for p
This section outlines a discrete implementation of the 1 0.
HTR algorithm. Our intents are to describe a general step- 4) Resolve the Fourier series for f ( p , (?r/2) - 4),
by-step procedure, point out pitfalls in discretizing the ex- using a discrete version of (8).
act relations of Section 11, and offer a discussion on the The discrete analog of (8) can also be computed with
algorithm's computational complexity. Reference [35] an FFT. One should use (13) to get negative-order
describes in depth our specific implementation of the HTR coefficients f,( p ). The result of this step gives a re-
algorithm. First, we list the key assumptions we make in construction of f defined on a discrete polar grid.
the discrete implementation. 5) Interpolate the polar-grid samples of the recon-
1) A finite set of projections pe ( t ), spanning the com- struction to a rectilinear grid.
Reference [35] describes four simple interpolation
techniques (nearest neighbor, inverse distance, bi-
31t is possible to avoid the quantityf( p , ( ? r / 2 ) - 4 ) in the derivation linear, and planar) for computing a rectilinear grid
of the basic HTR equations. Doing this, though, results in either extra
multiplicative factors or a more complex set of equations for computing of samples from the polar-grid samples of f ( p ,
the Hankel transforms [34]. ( a / 2 ) - 4). Note, however, that the resulting rec-
HIGGINS A N D MUNSON: HANKEL TRANSFORM APPROACH T O IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION 63

TABLE I interpolation [step 5)]. We have left out trivial operation

PARAMETER DEFINITIONS
FOR IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION
ALGORITHMS counts for miscellaneous scalings and windowing (regard-
A Number of projections (values of 0) p s ( r ) available.
less of the parameter values, operation counts for the op-
C Number of samples in the variable r available for P e ( r ) (for each erations omitted from Table I1 are always far outweighed
0). by other operations). Table I1 reveals that the computation
D Number of coefficients F , ( r ) computed (i.e., number of n
considered).
of the n th-order Hankel transforms can dominate the
G Dimension of the rectilinear reconstruction grid. computation. For instance, if the parameters L , S,and D
L Number of samples (in p ) off,( p ) computed (for all n). all equal G, then the HTR algorithm would require O ( G 3 )
P Number of samples (in 7) of +n(7) computed (for all n).
Number of slices off( p . 4 ) computed. computations to give a G X G reconstruction. The actual
Q
S Number of samples of J'' considered in resolving (17) with a complexity depends greatly, however, on the sophistica-
discrete sum 1321. tion of the hardware and software available for imple-
-
menting an algorithm. The number of multiplications is
TABLE I1 often used as a measure of computational complexity. On
SUMMARY
OF COMPUTATIONS
FOR THE HTR ALGORITHM our VAX 11/780 computer, though, a multiplication takes
roughly only twice the time of an addition. Thus, addi-
Step Number Number of Computations Types of Computation tions can figure prominently in the computation. Section
Step 1) 4AC log, C Real mults. for FFT in V will cover this issue for specific examples
discrete version of (4)
4AC log, c Read adds for FFT in IV. ERRORS FROM APPROXIMATIONS
discrete verison of (4) The approximate relations needed in a discrete imple-
Step 2) 4AC log, 2 A Real mults. for FFT in mentation of the HTR algorithm introduce several sources
discrete version of (7) of error into the reconstruction f R . Namely,
4AC log, 2 A Real adds. for FFT in
discrete version of (7) 1) truncation and approximation of the integral for F ( r,
Step 3 ) 8PD log, 2 P + ( 2 + 6 ) LSD Real mults. (see [ 3 2 ] ) 01,
8PD log, 2 P + ( 2 + E ) LSD Real adds. (see [32]) 2) approximation of the continuous integral for Fn ( r ) ,
Step 4) 4LQ log, Q Real mults. for FFT in 3) approximations in computing the n th-order Hankel
discrete version of (8) transforms f n ( p ),
4LQ log2 Q Real adds. for FFT in 4) the truncation of the infinite Fourier series f o r 5
discrete version of (8)
5) the interpolation of the rectilinear-grid reconstruc-
Step 5 ) pGz Real mults. for tion f R from the polar-grid reconstruction.
interpolation
E GZ Real adds. for The projections pe ( t ) may also be noisy. This possibil-
interpolation ity is analyzed in [35] and studied in the simulations of
Y GZ Lookups for Section V. Presently, we assume that the sampled projec-
interpolation
tions are error free and that all errors arise from approx-
imating the exact equations of the HTR algorithm.
tilinear grid samples must be interpreted asfR( U , U ) , The errors introduced into the reconstruction from im-
notfR(U, U ) . perfect Fn( r ) and imperfect F ( r , e ) , error sources 1) and
Several details warrant further attention. First, if sam- 2), are difficult to analyze practically. These errors can be
ples of F ( r, e) are directly available, step 1) is unneces- indirectly observed by analyzing the response of the HTR
sary. algorithm to noisy projections [35].
Second, note that to implement step 4),we must trun- To analyze error sources 3) and 4), define
cate the Fourier series for f( p , ( a / 2 ) - 4). This im- D- 1

plicitly places an angular bandlimit on the reconstruction fD(p, +) =

n= - ( D - I )
f,(p)ej"' (18)
[22], [37]. Sections IV and V give more discussion on the
effect of this truncation. where thefn( p ) are exact coefficients. Thus,fD( p , 4 ) is
Finally, if one uses only a local interpolation scheme a truncated version off( p , +)-see (8). (We drop the sub-
in step 5 ) , the interpolation error will be independent from tle distinction betweenf( p , +) andf( p , ( a / 2 ) - +) in
point to point. If a polar display is available-and some this section for simplicity.)
recent work by Weiman and Chaikin has pointed toward Error source 4) is bounded by
this possibility [38]-[39]-the interpolation, step 5 ) , is
unnecessary. For this case, one need only use the relation
Ed(p7 4) = ( f ( p , 6) - f D ( p , +)I
(12) to display the image properly.
Table I1 lists the computations needed by the algorithm.
Table I defines the various parameters used in Table I1 (19)
[35]. The steps refer to the individual steps of the HTR Note that the bound on Ed is independent of the angular
algorithm outlined above. The parameters 6 , e , F , {, and variable 4. This is to be expected since the HTR algo-
y rely on the interpolation schemes chosen in the Hankel rithm is circularly based. To examine (19) further, we
transform algorithm [step 3)] and the polar-to-rectilinear need to know how limn+ 1 f n ( p ) I behaves. From [40],
64 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 7, NO. I , MARCH 1988

iff( p , 4 ) has continuous derivatives up to order ( S - 1 )

and K discontinuities in dy( p , 4)/134,then, for each p ,

Thus, combining (19) and (20),

For S = 1, Ed is unbounded. Points falling on edges and

lines off( p , $), for example, have no continuous deriv-
atives dsf( p , +)/a4-for these cases, Ed can be infinite. (a) 64 coefficients
The smootherf( p , 4 ) is, though, the smaller Ed( p , )
is. This implies that for smoother regions of an image, we
can retain fewer coefficients f,( p ) to keep E,, small or,
1
equivalently, to get an acceptable reconstruction.
The approximate reconstruction f D ( p , 4 ) can also be
viewed as the convolution of the exact reconstruction f( p ,
4 ) with a smearing function k ( + ) [33], i.e.,
fD(p, 4) =f(p, 6)* k ( 6 ) (22)
where * denotes convolution and
D-1

k(4) = c
n=-(D-l)
,,eJn4. (23)

FOrfD as given in (18), the sequence w, of (23) is given

by w, = 1 for n = - (D - 1 ), ---
, D - 1. This gives
(b) 16 coefficients
sin ((D- 1) 4) Fig. 1. Reconstruction of an impulse using the HTR algorithm. Number
k(4) = (24) of coefficients used in (8) is varied.

The function k ( + ) of (23) has the following properties:
1) periodic with period 2n, 2) has main lobe width
4 a / ( 2 D - l), and 3) is negative for some 4. Thus, trun-
cating the Fourier series (8) forf( p , 4), which is equiv-
alent to convolvingf( p , 4 ) with k ( 4), manifests itself in
the following ways.
1) For each p , the reconstruction is smeared in the
angular variable 4; in particular, edges and lines infD are
smeared.
2) Parts of fD ( p , 4 ) may be negative, even though f ( p ,
4 ) is typically nonnegative (as in the cases when f rep-
resents intensity or density).
3) The angular resolution of the reconstruction gets
limited by roughly the mainlobe width of k (4); since the
angular resolution does not depend on p , the convolution
effectively imposes an assumption of angular bandlimit-
edness. Thus, for a constant angular resolution, the real
resolution becomes poorer as p increases.
How these effects worsen a reconstruction can be stud-
ied by looking at the reconstruction of an impulse. Fig. 1
gives the reconstruction of an impulse for two cases. No-
tice how the 64-coefficient reconstruction depicts an iso-
lated impulse, while the 16-coefficient reconstruction has
a wide mainlobe in the 4 direction and significant ripple
around a circle.
As we will see in Section V, the ripple can significantly
degrade a reconstruction. Picking appropriate weights
{ w, 1 for k ( 4)-this is equivalent to using the weighted
coefficients w,f, ( p ) in place off, ( p ) in the discrete im-
plementation [step 4)]-can greatly reduce the ripple at
the expense of losing some resolution. Among the possi-
bilities devised by mathematicians are the Fejer weights
[33] and Lanczoss sigma factors [41]. The Fejer weights,
in particular, can preserve the nonnegativity o f f in f D ;
unfortunately, they tend to overly compromise the reso-
lution [33]. Standard digital signal processing windows
can also serve as suitable weights [I], [36].
The error from using approximate coefficients f,( p ) is
bounded by [30], (341
D- I
HlGGlNS AND MUNSON: HANKEL TRANSFORM APPROACH TO IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION 65

where YD( p , 4 ) is equivalent to f,(p , +), except that

1 . 0
I I I I

f E ( p , 4) uses numerically computed coefficients fa( p )

(step 3 ) of the HTR algorithm). Depending on the nature
of g , and g,, this bound can grow with both n and p . e s
Thus, (21) implies that if we use too few terms in the
Fourier series forf, we can get a large error in the recon-
struction, and (25) suggests that if we use too many terms,
the error again may be large. e 0
As we mentioned earlier, the error from the polar-to-
rectilinear interpolation 5) is independent from point to
point in the reconstruction (assuming local interpolation
schemes). It is also difficult to derive a useful bound on - 0 s
this error. The simulations of Section V will show, how-
ever, that this interpolation can have a considerable im-
pact on the quality of the reconstructions.

V. COMPUTATIONAL
EXAMPLES
This section examines the performance of the digital
HTR algorithm and also how the algorithm compares to
the CBP a l g ~ r i t h m . ~
The reconstructions are done with the Shepp and Logan
head phantom [4]. This example, composed of 1 1 super-
imposed ellipses, simulates a horizontal cross section of
the human head. The ellipses model the skull, brain mat-
ter, various brain lobes, and several possible brain de-
fects. Reference [4] describes the parameters for the head
phantom in more detail.
When a cross section of the head is imaged by an X-
ray CAT scanner, the resulting reconstruction includes
both the skull and the brain. If the skull has its intensity
set to = 1 .O, the brain matter may have intensities vary-
ing over a small range-roughly between 0.00 and 0.06.
(We assume, as Shepp and Logan do, that a water bag
surrounds the skull [4].) The brains narrow range of in-
tensities, though, contains the interesting information
(e.g., brain lobes, tumors, blood clots). The Shepp and
Logan head phantom incorporates this severe intensity
constraint, and therefore gives a realistic, demanding test
of an image reconstruction algorithm.
Another advantage of the head phantom is that its pro-
jections pe ( I ) can be computed analytically. One need
only know the expression for the projection of a general
rotated and translated ellipse-Rosenfeld and Kak [7] give
this expression. Using the linearity of the projection op-
eration, the projection ( t ) of the head phantom can be
computed by summing the contributions of each of the 1 1
ellipses. We thus can start with exact projections in sim-
ulations.
Fig. 2 gives a plot of the head phantom along with the
intensities of its components. Fig. 3 gives an exact 128
x 128 display. For our simulations, we use a 0-255 lin-
ear gray scale representing intensities from 0.00 to 0.06;
those intensities above 0.06 are set to 255. All reconstruc-
tions in this section use 128 projections ( A = 128) having
+Reference [42] gives some preliminary results on the comparison be-
tween the HTR algorithm and the CBP algorithm.
-
Fig. 2 . Geometry of the Shepp and Logan head phantom. The numbers
indicate relative intensity. For a list of parameters defining this diagram,
see [4].
Fig. 3. Exact 128 x 128 display of Shepp and Logan head phantom. In-
tensities from 0.00 to 0.06 are mapped linearly onto a 0-255 gray scale.
Intensities above 0.06 are set to 255.
127 samples per projection, and they assume the dimen-
sions of Fig. 2 ( G = 128).
Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7 , 9, and 10 illustrate reconstructions of
the head phantom made with the HTR algorithm. For HTR
reconstructions, we fix the following parameters (see Ta-
ble I): C = 256, L = 128, P = 128, and S = 128.
All of these reconstructions feature a greatly widened
skull. This comes about partly from the necessary win-
dowing of the Fourier-transform samples F ( r , e) in the
discrete implementation of (7). The windowing (low-pass
filtering) of the Fourier-transform samples smears the
skull near its discontinuities in intensity. Further, while
much of this extraneous smeared region has a low inten-
sity relative to the skull, it does not necessarily have a
low intensity relative to the gray scale. (Remember that
the skull has nominal intensity 1.0, while the gray scale
only covers intensities ranging from 0.00 to 0.06.)
All of the reconstructions also have clutter outside the
skull. This comes about from three sources. First, recon-
structing with only a finite number of sampled projections
66 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 7, NO. I . MARCH 1988

Fig. 4. Test of coefficient weighting schemes for the HTR algorithm. The
reconstructions use D = 64, Q =' 128, and bilinear interpolation for the
final polar-to-rectilinear interpolation in step 5) (see Section 111). Also,
the Hankel transforms fn ( p ) are computed using linear interpolation in
(17) [32] and the I rl kernel suggested in [35] [see the discussion in
Section 111 regarding (16)]. (a) Truncation weighting. (b) Hamming
weights.

introduces aliasing error. Second, displaying the recon-

struction on a discrete rectilinear grid introduces Moire
patterns. (See [7] for an instructive study of these prob-
lems.) Third, the angular smearing of the HTR algorithm
causes the circular nature of the clutter. Notice, however,
that the reconstructions do not generally exhibit this clut- I^\

ter within the skull. Shepp andLogan proved that the re-
construction error of an ellipse (or constant spatially lim-
ited figures in general) in the CBP algorithm is much
greater outside the ellipse than inside [4].They linked this
behavior to a step in the algorithm that essentially takes
the derivative of the Hilbert transform of the projections
(see (26) further on). Since the algorithm we use to com-
pute Hankel transforms has an operation similar to this,
namely (16), errors in the coefficients f n ( p ) will exhibit
similar behavior. These errors will then in turn be distrib-
uted around circles in the polar-form reconstruction.
As we saw in Section 111, a discrete implementation of
(8) must by necessity truncate the infinite Fourier series
forf. Section IV pointed out, though, that a blind trun- (d)
cation Can result in large reCOnStruCtiOn artifacts. TO avoid Fig. 5. Test of varying the number of coefficients D for the HTR algo-
generating excessive artifacts, we recommend weighting rithm. Hamming weights used in step 4). The Hankel transform algo-
rithm uses nearest neighbor interpolation in (17) [32]. All other condi-
the coefficients f n( p ). tions are the same as those in Fig. 4. (a) D = 128. (b) D = 64. (c) D =
Fig. 4 depicts reconstructions for two weighting 32. (d) D = 16.

HIGGINS AND MUNSON: HANKEL TRANSFORM APPROACH TO IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION
(C)
Fig. 6 . A study of polar-to-rectilinear interpolation schemes in step 5) of
the discrete implementation. All other parameters are the same as those
in Fig. 5(b). (a) Nearest neighbor. (b) Inverse distance. (c) Planar.
schemes: (a) truncation (w,= 1, I n 1 < D ) , and (b) a set
based on the Hamming window. Recall from Section IV
that weighting the coefficientsf,( p ) by the weights { w,}
is equivalent to convolving the ideal reconstruction with
a function k ( 4 ) [cf. (22) and ( 2 3 ) ] .Further, retaining too
few coefficients can widen the mainlobe of k(4) and
hence degrade the resolution, but from (25), higher order
coefficients can be dominated by noise. Thus, a suitable
set of weights then has three characteristics:
1) reduces the sidelobes of the convolving function
k(4),
2 ) deemphasizes higher order coefficients f,( p ) ,
3) keeps the mainlobe of k ( 4 ) small.
~
67
(b)
Fig. 7. Varying the number of slices Q of the polar-grid reconstruction in
the HTR algorithm. All other parameters are the same as those of Fig.
5(b). (a) Q = 256. (b) Q = 64.
Truncation makes no attempt to temper the undesirable
sidelobes of k ( 4 ) nor to deemphasize higher order coef-
ficients. As a result, it smears the reconstructions more
severely and generates considerably more clutter than the
other three schemes. In particular, it does not discriminate
the blood clot at (0.56,-0.4) well. The Hamming weights,
which consider all of the criteria above, give a much
cleaner reconstruction.
The computational burden of the HTR algorithm de-
pends greatly on the number of coefficients fn( p ) re-
tained-so, however, does the quality of the reconstruc-
tion. (The parameter D gives the number of nonnegative-
ordered coefficients f,( p ) computed. Relation (13) gives
the negative-order coefficients. Thus, given D,a recon-
struction actually uses ( 2 0 - 1 ) coefficients.) Fig. 5 ex-
amines how the number of coefficients D computed affects
reconstructions. Interestingly, the reconstruction made
with 128 coefficients looks poorer than the reconstruc-
tions made with 64 and 32 coefficients. Apparently, the
error in the computed coefficients f, ( p ) for n > D 1 , for
some D , = 64, dominates over the magnitude of the coef-
ficients-at least for larger values of p ; retaining these
coefficients hurts the reconstruction. This behavior is rea-
sonable in view of (25). The reconstructions using 32 and
64 coefficients seem nearly identical, implying that coef-
ficients f,( p ) for n > D 2 , for some D2 in the vicinity of
32, contribute little to the reconstruction. We have made
no attempt to optimize the number of coefficients to retain
68 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 7, NO. I . MARCH 1988

(given all of the other parameters). The D = 64 and D = 0 . 0 6

32 reconstructions, however, apparently approach the op-

timum for this particular image. Further, for these two
reconstructions, the reconstruction errors probably come
0 . 0 4
about more from other sources of error-insufficiently
sampling the projections, using too few projections, fil-
tering the Fourier-transform samples, inadequate inter-
polation from the polar-grid reconstruction to the final
0 0 2
rectilinear-grid reconstruction, and others.
The computation times in seconds for the reconstruc-
tions of Fig. 5 appear below.
0 . 0 0
D Total Time Time for Hankel
Transforms 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0

128 907 715

64 508 333
32 33 1 184- 0 . 0 6
16 238 106

These times come from timing routines available on our

VAX 11/780 time-shared computer and are reliable to 0 . 0 4

within roughly 20 p e r ~ e n t Notice

.~ the percentage of the
computation times taken by the Hankel transforms. For
the D = 128 case, they take 75 percent of the total time.
The factor of three drop in Computation time that results 0 . 0 2

from reducing D from 128 to 32 dramatically points out

the incentive for retaining as few coefficients as possible.
While D = 16 gives an unacceptable reconstruction for
larger values of p , it does give a comparable reconstruc- 0 . 0 0

tion for smaller p . Reference [35] discusses this phenom- 50

enon. Reference [35] shows that for smaller p , we can

retain fewer coefficients and maintain the quality of the
reconstruction. Since the computation of the coefficients
fn( p ) dominates the computation time, this result can be
used to reduce the computation time of the HTR algo-
rithm. (We did not use this idea for any of the reconstruc-
tions in this paper.)
Fig. 6 studies various methods for interpolating the po-
lar-grid samples f to a rectilinear grid (step 5 ) of the dis-
crete implementation). Reference [35] gives the exact de-
tail as to how we implemented these interpolation,
schemes. Also, [6] and [8] discuss these schemes. Near-
est neighbor and inverse-distance interpolation give con-
siderably poorer results than bilinear [Fig. 5(b)] and planar
interpolation and demonstrate the caution that this step
requires-a crude interpolation scheme will give a crude
rectilinear-grid reconstruction. The reconstructions done
with bilinear and planar interpolation are nearly indistin-
guishable. For the majority of reconstructions in this pa-
per, we use bilinear interpolation, which is simpler than
planar interpolation and consumes less than 5 percent of
the total computation time (given our computer and the
parameters we have chosen for the reconstructions).
Fig. 7 considers varying the number of reconstructed
'We made a strong effort to use consistent load-average and operating
conditions during the computer runs. Typical runs for a constant parameter
set are generally well within 20 percent of each other. Note that a stand-
alone computer would not exhibit timing variability.
Fig. 8. Plot of the v = -0.606 line for the reconstructions of Figs. 5(b)
and 7(a). The solid line gives the exact profile; the dotted line gives the
profile for the reconstruction. (a) Q = 128 slices in reconstruction [from
Fig. 5(b)]. (b) Q = 256 [from Fig. 7(a)].
slices Q of the polar-grid reconstruction f (step 4) of the
discrete implementation). Fig. 7(a) shows the result for Q
doubled over that of Fig. 5(b). A comparison of the z, =
-0.606 line for Fig. 7(a) and Fig. 5(b) (see Fig. 8) re-
veals that doubling the number of reconstructed slices can
improve the resolution of the reconstruction. (Notice how
the tumors near the center of the profile are distinguished
better by the Q = 256 reconstruction.) The additional
computation for the case Q = 256 is only about 5 percent
greater than the case Q = 128. By picking Q larger, we
effectively increase the number of coefficients f, ( p ) we
retain, and hence improve the angular resolution. This as-
sumes, however, that the higher order coefficients equal
0; while this is not generally true, in reality it very nearly
is [35]. Picking Q too small can drastically hurt the qual-
ity of the reconstruction. Fig. 7(b), which has Q = 64,
shows serious distortion. In concurrence with the error
analysis of Section IV, the choice of Q apparently de-
mands great caution.
Fig. 9 studies the effects of starting with projections
contaminated by additive white Gaussian noise. Fig. 9(a)
and (b) shows that the HTR algorithm smears the noise
 -

HIGGINS A N D MUNSON: HANKEL TRANSFORM APPROACH TO IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION 69

Fig. 10. HTR reconstruction that uses a naive version of ( r ( in (16) in-
stead of the modified 1 r \ suggested in [35].All other parameters are the
same as Fig. 5(b).

0 . 0 6

0 . 0 4

0 . 0 2

0 5 0 1 0 0 1 5 0

Fig. 11. Plot of the v = -0.606 line for the reconstruction of Fig. 10.

around circles (notice the swirling patterns of the noise).

(d)
Fig. 9. Reconstructions with the HTR algorithm using projections contam-
inated by zero-mean, additive, white Gaussian noise having U as indi-
cated. All other parameters, unless otherwise indicated, are the same as evidence, Fig. 11 gives a plot of the v = -0.606 line for
for Fig. 5(b). (a) U = 0.002. (b) U = 0.004. (c) U = 0.004 and D = 32.
(d) U = 0.004, truncation { w.} used for weighting thefa( p ) in step 4), the reconstruction of Fig. 10. A dc shift of nearly -0.004
and D = 64.
Fig. 9(c) gives a reconstruction that retains only 32 coef-
ficients. Notice that it is a slightly cleaner reconstruction
than that of Fig. 9(b), indicating that some of the coeffi-
cientsf,( p ) for some n > D 1 = 32 hurt the reconstruc-
tion more than they help. This result supports a white-
noise analysis done in [35] where it was found that the
noise gain becomes larger as the number of coefficients
retained increases. (Thus, for the Shepp and Logan head
phantom, Fig. 5(d) shows the dangers of retaining too few
coefficients, while Fig. 9(b) shows the dangers of retain-
ing too many.) Fig. 9(d) shows the impact of the weights
{ w, 1 on the reconstruction-the weights substantially re-
duce the noise added to the reconstruction by the higher
order coefficients. Overall, Fig. 9 demonstrates the flex-
ibility inherent in the HTR algorithm for combating noise.
Figs. 10 and 11 depict the dangers of not handling the
I r 1 function in the computation of the 9,(11 ) in (16) prop-
erly. Notice the dishing that appears in the brain lobes
located at (0.22, 0.0) and (-0.22, 0.0) in Fig. 10; a sig-
nificant dc shift occurs in this reconstruction. As further
exists-considering that the important information in the
70 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 7, NO. I , MARCH 1988

TABLE 111
SUMMARY
OF COMPUTATIONS
FOR THE CBP ALGORITHM

Number of
Computations Type of Computation

4 AC log, C Real mults. for computing FT slices in discrete version

of (4)
4AC log, C Real adds. for computing FT slices in discrete version
of (4)
4AC log, C Real mults. for FFT in (26)
4AC log, C Real adds. for FFT in (26)
A G ~ +
Real adds. for arguments ( U cos 0 y sin 0 ) in (27)
~ A G ~Real mults. for interpolating terms in (27)
BAG, Real adds. for interpolating terms in (27)
Fig. 12. Reconstruction of head phantom using the CBP algorithm. The AG Lookups of terms for summing in (27)
reconstruction uses the Shepp and Logan 1 r 1 kernel for computing the AG, Real adds. for summing terms in (27)
filtered projections Q,( t ) and nearest neighbor interpolation for the
backprojection step.

Table I11 summarizes the computations needed for the

0 . 0 6
CBP algorithm; we computed the filtered projections at
256 points ( C = 256). Also, for nearest neighbor inter-
polation, a = fi = 0. On our computer, the CBP algo-
rithm took 875 s to generate the reconstruction of Fig. 13.
0 . 0 4
The HTR algorithm, however, took 508 and 331 s for the
D = 64 and D = 32 cases. Thus, for the image size con-
sidered, the HTR algorithm takes on the order of two-
0 . 0 2
three times less computation time than the CBP algo-
rithm.

VI. CONCLUSION
0 . 0 0 We explored an algorithm, which we referred to as the
HTR algorithm, for digital image reconstruction from
0 5 0 1 8 0 1 5 8
projections. We first discussed the theory behind the al-
Fig. 13. Profile of the v = -0.606 line for the CBP reconstruction. gorithm, and then outlined a five-step discrete implemen-
tation. An analysis of the approximations introduced by
head phantom falls within the range 0.00 and 0.06, this this implementation showed that the number of coeffi-
loss is severe. cients retained in the Fourier series for the reconstructed
Fig. 12 gives a reconstruction of the head phantom, image can have a significant impact on the quality of re-
made with the CBP algorithm, starting with the same constructions. Using too few coefficients gives poor res-
sampled projections as those used for all of the previous olution in the angular variable. Using too many may
reconstructions. Fig. 13 gives a profile of the U = -0.606 introduce further reconstruction error (high-order co-
line for this reconstruction. To generate Fig. 12, we im- efficients become dominated by error). We further found
plemented the equations that the algorithm effectively smears the image in con-
stant-radius circles-the fewer coefficients retained, the
1 - more severe this smearing. Further, if the projections are
Qe(t) = 4n2 -m
F ( r , 0 ) Irl ejrrdr (26) contaminated by white noise, then again retaining too
many coefficients can be harmful-the noise gain rises as
and the number of coefficients retained rises.

&(U, U ) = s,^ Qe(U cos 8 + U sin 8) de. (27)

To compute the filtered projections Qe ( t ) , we used the
Shepp and Logan I r I kernel and an FFT [4]. In the back-
projection step (27), we used an efficient scheme requir-
ing no multiplications to compute the arguments ( U cos 8
+ U sin 0 ) and nearest neighbor interpolation to determine
values of Qe( * ). As is apparent from the reconstructions
and plots of the U = -0.606 line, the HTR algorithm can
give reconstructions comparable to the CBP algorithm
(also, see [42]).
We next gave an extensive set of reconstructions that
explored the flexibility of the HTR algorithm. These re-
constructions, done with the standard Shepp and Logan
head phantom, demonstrated the following.
1) Acceptable reconstructions can often be made with
few coefficients (relative to the number of input projec-
tions).
2) The number of slices reconstructed in the polar-grid
reconstruction is a critical parameter-reconstructing too
few slices gives a poor reconstruction for larger p .
3) The polar-to-rectilinear interpolation (gives the final
rectilinear-grid reconstruction) significantly affects the re-

HIGGINS A N D MUNSON: HANKEL TRANSFORM APPROACH TO IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION
sults; we found, though, that simple bilinear interpolation
is satisfactory.
4) Weights applied to the coefficients significantly re-
duce noise and circular smearing.
5) The computation of the Hankel transforms domi-
nates the computation time of the algorithm; by reducing
the number of coefficients (or streamlining the Hankel
transform algorithm [35]), we found that we could reduce
the computation by a factor of 2 or more and still generate
acceptable reconstructions; the I r 1 function in the Hankel
transform algorithm, however, requires caution-naively
ignoring the caution introduces a severe dc shift in the
image (our recommendation in [35] eradicates this diffi-
culty).
We also found that the HTR algorithm can give recon-
structions comparable to the CBP algorithm and take a
factor of 2 (or more) less computation to generate a re-
construction. The algorithm is particularly well suited for
approaches that begin with Fourier information. Since one
has the freedom to control how many termsf, ( p ) e$ to
retain in the Fourier series for f and to weight individual
terms f,( p ) e j + , the HTR algorithm provides the flexi-
bility to modify individual components of an image. Also,
since the HTR algorithm uses available polar-grid infor-
mation (be it projections or Fourier-transform slices) di-
rectly, it avoids the errors introduced into reconstructions
made by some other techniques. A drawback of the al-
gorithm is that it requires a polar-to-rectilinear interpola-
tion to display a reconstruction on standard rectilinear dis-
plays-this step does not, however, require much
computation. Since we have only examined two test im-
ages (see [42] for some preliminary work) and used a rel-
atively small set of projections, we cannot draw conclu-
sive results on the effectiveness of the HTR algorithm.
Overall, however, this work indicates that the HTR al-
gorithm could be a viable alternative to the CBP algorithm
for tomographic image reconstruction.
REFERENCES
G. T. Herman, Ed., Image Reconstruction from Projections: Imple-
mentations and Applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1979.
L. A. Shepp and J. B. Kruskal, Computerized tomography: the new
medical x-ray technology, Amer. Math. Monthly, vol. 8 5 , pp. 420-
438, June-July 1978.
G. N. Ramachandran and A. V. Lakshminarayanan, Three-dimen-
sional reconstruction from radiographs and electron micrographs: ap-
plication of convolutions instead of Fourier transforms, Proc. Nut.
Acad. Sei. USA, vol. 68, pp. 2236-2240, Sept. 1971.
L. A. Shepp and B. F. Logan, The Fourier reconstruction of a head
section, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. NS-21, pp. 21-43, June 1974.
R. M. Lewitt, R. H. T. Bates, and T . M. Peters, Image reconstruc-
tion from projections 11: Modified back-projection methods, Optik,
vol. 50, pp. 85-109, Mar. 1978.
G. T. Herman, Ed., Image Reconstruction from Projections: The
Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography. New York: Aca-
demic, 1980.
A . Rosenfeld and A. C. Kak, Digital Picture Processing, Vol. I .
New York: Academic, 1983.
R. N. Mersereau and A. V. Oppenheim, Digital reconstruction of
multidimensional signals from their projections, Proc. IEEE, vol.
62, pp. 1319-1338, Oct. 1974.
H. J. Scudder, Introduction to computer aided tomography, Proc.
IEEE, vol. 66, pp. 628-637, June 1978.
-
71
Z. H. Cho, H. S . Kim, H. B. Song, and J. Cumming, Fourier trans-
form nuclear magnetic resonance tomographic imaging, Proc. IEEE,
vol. 70, pp. 1152-1173, Oct. 1982.
Spectral issue on computerized tomography, Proc. IEEE, vol. 71,
pp. 291-435, Mar. 1983.
R. N. Bracewell, Strip integration in radio astronomy, Aust. J .
Phys., vol. 9 , pp. 198-217, June 1956.
D. J. DeRosier and A. Klug, Reconstruction of three dimensional
structures from electron micrographs, Nature, vol. 217, pp. 130-
134, Jan. 13, 1968.
R. A. Crowther et a l . , Three dimensional reconstructions of spher-
ical viruses by Fourier synthesis from electron micrographs, Nature,
vol. 226, pp. 421-425, May 2, 1970.
P. F.C. Gilbert, The reconstruction of a three-dimensional structure
from projections and its application to electron microscopy 11: Direct
methods, Proc. Roy. Soc. London E , vol. 182, pp. 89-102, July 25,
1972.
D. C. Munson, Jr. and W. E. Higgins, Faster algorithms for com-
puter-aided tomography and spotlight-mode synthetic aperture ra-
dar?, in Proc. 16th Asilomar Conf. Circuits, Syst., Comput., Pacific
Grove, CA, Nov. 1982, pp. 426-430.
D. C. Munson, Jr., J. D. OBrien, and W. K. Jenkins, A tomo-
graphic formulation of spotlight-mode synthetic aperture radar,
Proc. IEEE, vol. 71, pp. 917-925, Aug. 1983.
Y. Censor, Series-expansion reconstruction methods, Proc. IEEE,
vol. 71, pp. 409-419, Mar. 1983.
G. N. Hounsfield, Method and apparatus for measuring X or y ra-
diation absorption or transmission at plural angles and analyzing the
data, U.S. Patent 3778614, Dec. 11, 1973.
G. T. Herman and S . W. Rowland, Three methods for reconstruct-
ing objects from X rays: A comparative study, Comput. Graphics
h u g e Processing, vol. 2, pp. 151-178, Oct. 1973.
P. P. B. Eggermont, Tomographic reconstruction on a logarithmic
polar grid, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. MI-2, pp. 40-48, Mar.
1983.
H. Stark, J. W. Woods, I. Paul, and R. Hingorani, Direct Fourier
reconstruction in computer tomography, IEEE Trans. Acoust.,
Speech, Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-29, pp. 237-245, Apr. 1981.
R. W. Lewitt, Reconstruction methods: Transform methods, Proc.
IEEE, vol. 71, pp. 390-408, Mar. 1983.
J. B. Garrison, D. G. Grant, W. H. Guier, and R. J. Johns, Three-
dimensional roentgenography, Amer. J. Roentgenol., Rad. Ther-
apy, Nucl. Med., vol. 60, no. 4 , pp. 903-908, 1969.
E. W. Hansen, Theory of circular harmonic image reconstruction,
J . Opt. Soc. Amer., vol. 71, pp. 304-308, Mar. 1981.
-, Circular harmonic image reconstruction: Experiments, Appl.
Opt., vol. 20, pp. 2266-2274, July 1, 1981.
S . J. Norton, Reconstruction of a two-dimensional reflecting me-
dium over a circular domain: Exact solution, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer.,
vol. 67, pp. 1266-1273, Apr. 1980.
I. Shenberg and A. Macovski, Rapid magnetic resonance imaging
using the Hankel transform approach, in Proc. Int. Conf. Acoust.,
Speech, Signal Processing, Tokyo, Japan, Apr. 1986, pp. 34.1.1-
34.1.4.
A. K. Louis and F. Natterer, Mathematical problems of computer-
ized tomography, Proc. IEEE, vol. 71, pp. 379-389, Mar. 1983.
K. T. Smith, D. C. Solmon, and S. L. Wagner, Practical and math-
ematical aspects of the problem of reconstructing objects from ra-
diographs, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 83, pp. 1227-1270, Nov.
1977.
J. L. C. Sanz, Polar sampling and angularly bandlimited func-
tions, Proc. IEEE, vol. 73, pp. 1334-1336, Aug. 1985.
W. E. Higgins and D. C. Munson, Jr., An algorithm for computing
general integer-order Hankel transforms, IEEE Trans. Acoust.,
Speech, Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-35, pp. 86-97, Jan. 1987.
A. Papoulis, Systems and Transforms with Applications in Optics.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.
W. E. Higgins and D. C. Munson, Jr., private correspondence with
A. Macovski, Aug. 1987.
-, Tomographic image reconstruction via a Hankel transform ap-
preach," Coordinated Sci. Lab., Univ. Illinois, Urbana, Tech. Rep.,
1987.
A. V. Oppenheim and R. W. Shafer, Digital Signal Processing. En-
glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
H. Fan and J. L. C. Sanz, Comments on Direct Fourier reconstruc-
tion in computer tomography, IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Sig-
nal Processing, vol. ASSP-33, pp. 446-449, Apr. 1985.
72
[38] C . F. R . Weiman and G. Chaikin, Logarithmic spiral grids for im-
age processing and display, Comput. Graphics Image Processing,
vol. 11, pp. 197-226, NOV. 1979.
1391 G. M. Chaikin and C. F. R. Weiman, Conformal computational
geometry for machine vision, in Proc. 5th Int. Con5 Pattern Rec-
ognition, Miami Beach, FL, Dec. 1980, pp. 1106-1 1 IO.
[40] R. W. Hamming, Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. I, NO. I , MARCH 1988
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.
[41] C. Lanczos, Discourse of Fourier Series. Edinburgh: Oliver and
Boyd. 1966.
[42] W.E. Higgins and D. C. Munson, Jr., Tomographic image recon-
struction via a Hankel-transform approach, presented at the 17th
Asilomar Conf. Circuits, Syst., Comput., Pacific Grove, CA, Oct.
1983.