1777
Evaluation of Super Resolution Network for Universal Resolution Improvement
Zechen Zhou1, Yi Wang2, Johannes M. Peeters3, Peter Börnert4, Chun Yuan5, and Marcel Breeuwer3
1Philips Research North America, Cambridge, MA, United States, 2MR Clinical Science, Philips Healthcare North America, Gainesville, FL, United States, 3MR Clinical Science, Philips Healthcare, Best, Netherlands, 4Philips Research Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, 5Vascular Imaging Lab, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States
Perceptual loss function and multi-scale network structure can improve the generalization and robustness of super resolution (SR) network performance. A single SR network trained with brain data is feasible to perform well in knee and body imaging applications.
Figure 4: Comparison of super resolution (SR) results using different network architectures and training datasets in abdominal imaging. HR: high resolution ground truth. L1 GAN: L1+advaserial loss. L1 GAN VGG: L1+adversarial+perceptual loss. Body/Brain indicates the training datasets. The bottom two rows are the zoom-in views from HR and different SR results in a same local region of the full field-of-view HR body image. Note the SR performance difference for small image structures as shown by the red arrows.
Figure 3: Comparison of MSRES2NET based super resolution (SR) results using different loss functions and training datasets in knee imaging. HR: high resolution ground truth. LR: downsampled low resolution input. L1 GAN: L1+advaserial loss. L1 GAN VGG: L1+adversarial+perceptual loss. Knee/Brain(mp)/Brain(all) indicates the training datasets, where brain(mp) denotes to only use MPRAGE data and brain(all) uses all of the brain data. Note the SR results difference for the ligament regions (red circles) and small arteries (red arrows).