Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,340

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Survey: interpolation methods in medical image processing

Lehmann, T.M., Gonner, C., Spitzer, K.·1999·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

Image interpolation techniques often are required in medical imaging for image generation (e.g., discrete back projection for inverse Radon transform) and processing such as compression or resampling. Since the ideal interpolation function spatially is unlimited, several interpolation kernels of finite size have been introduced. This paper compares 1) truncated and windowed sinc; 2) nearest neighbor; 3) linear; 4) quadratic; 5) cubic B-spline; 6) cubic; g) Lagrange; and 7) Gaussian interpolation and approximation techniques with kernel sizes from 1 x 1 up to 8 x 8. The comparison is done by: 1) spatial and Fourier analyses; 2) computational complexity as well as runtime evaluations; and 3) qualitative and quantitative interpolation error determinations for particular interpolation tasks which were taken from common situations in medical image processing. For local and Fourier analyses, a standardized notation is introduced and fundamental properties of interpolators are derived. Successful methods should be direct current (DC)-constant and interpolators rather than DC-inconstant or approximators. Each method's parameters are tuned with respect to those properties. This results in three novel kernels, which are introduced in this paper and proven to be within the best choices for medical image interpolation: the 6 x 6 Blackman-Harris windowed sinc interpolator, and the C2-continuous cubic kernels with N = 6 and N = 8 supporting points. For quantitative error evaluations, a set of 50 direct digital X rays was used. They have been selected arbitrarily from clinical routine. In general, large kernel sizes were found to be superior to small interpolation masks. Except for truncated sinc interpolators, all kernels with N = 6 or larger sizes perform significantly better than N = 2 or N = 3 point methods (p << 0.005). However, the differences within the group of large-sized kernels were not significant. Summarizing the results, the cubic 6 x 6 interpolator with continuous second derivatives, as defined in (24), can be recommended for most common interpolation tasks. It appears to be the fastest six-point kernel to implement computationally. It provides eminent local and Fourier properties, is easy to implement, and has only small errors. The same characteristics apply to B-spline interpolation, but the 6 x 6 cubic avoids the intrinsic border effects produced by the B-spline technique. However, the goal of this study was not to determine an overall best method, but to present a comprehensive catalogue of methods in a uniform terminology, to define general properties and requirements of local techniques, and to enable the reader to select that method which is optimal for his specific application in medical imaging.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/42.816070

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,340

Metadata

Authors
Lehmann, T. M., Gonner, C., & Spitzer, K.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
1999
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
1049-1075
ISSN
0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2113524221
Cited by
1,340
References
0
FWCI
15.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Survey: interpolation methods in medical image processing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/42.816070
The paper
Lehmann, T. M., Gonner, C., & Spitzer, K. (1999). Survey: interpolation methods in medical image processing. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.816070

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.