The Equivalence of SVD and Fourier Deconvolution for Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Analysis

David ALSOP1, Gottfried SCHLAUG1

1Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, One Deaconess Road /W/CC090, Boston, MA USA;
Introduction
The quantification of cerebral blood flow by observing the passage of a
bolus of intra-vascular contrast agent requires removing the
broadening effect of the bolus width on the otherwise brief transit time
through the tissue. Deconvolution techniques are advantageous for
this purpose because they make few assumptions about the shape of
the tissue clearance curve.
Fourier and matrix methods can be used for this purpose, but since the
smoothing of the tissue clearance curve by the bolus causes a loss of
information, simple deconvolution will produce extremely high noise
and sometimes divide by zero errors. Ostergaard et al (1) have
evaluated a number of different deconvolution techniques and have
argued that singular value decomposition (SVD) is the most accurate.
Later studies have compared the SVD and Fourier approaches (2) and
have demonstrated the importance of choosing the SVD cutoff to
balance minimizing noise and introducing errors in the flow
measurement(3).
Below we demonstrate that SVD deconvolution is very closely related
to Fourier deconvolution and can be mathematically equivalent for a
certain Fourier filtering and SVD thresholding approach. This
observation yields insights into the effects of singular value
thresholding with SVD and the optimal Fourier filtering for blood flow
measurement.
Theory
In the absence of noise, the measured concentration-time curve is a
convolution of the tissue response function, R, with the arterial input
function. This convolution can be written as a matrix multiplication,
s=MR, where s is the tissue concentration and M is the convolution
matrix.
In an experiment, we know M and s and want to measure R. Direct
inversion of M will generally cause excessively noisy results. Instead,
one can choose to find an approximation to R, r, which minimizes the
squared difference between the measured and theoretical tissue
concentration curves subject to a constraint on the square magnitude of
r. This can be achieved by minimizing an error function, eq [1]
including lambda, a Lagrange multiplier. This error function will be a
minimum when the derivative is zero, eq [2].
Now suppose M can be diagonalized with a unitary transformation, eq
[3], where W is a diagonal matrix and U and V are unitary matrices.
Then we can substitute for M in eq. [2] solve for r, eq. [4]
A real square matrix M can always be decomposed into the form of
equation [3] where W is real and positive and U and V are real. This is
referred to as the singular value decomposition. In the solution to r,
singular values smaller than the square root of lambda will have little
affect on the solution. Hence, choosing lambda is nearly equivalent to
the editing of singular values typically performed with SVD matrix
inversion.

Discussion
The equivalence of Fourier and SVD deconvolution suggest that earlier
findings of differences in the two techniques were the result of
particular implementations. In particular, the filter implied by eq. [5]
is not an optimal filter for Fourier deconvolution for an exponential
clearance. Instead it represents an optimal filter for a spike, i.e. a
waveform with a flat power spectrum. The advantage of this filter for
flow quantification is intuitive since the flow measurement is based on
the first or alternatively the peak value of the deconvolved tissue
concentration curve.
The relationship between SVD and Fourier deconvolution and the
form of eq. [5] also provide a direct relationship between SVD
thresholding and Wiener filtering for a spike waveform. This may
provide a simpler method than simulations for determining the optimal
thresholds.
The derivation above assumed that the form of the matrix M was
identical for Fourier and SVD deconvolution. For the Fourier
convolution theorem to be valid, M must represent a cyclic
convolution. In contrast, SVD is not constrained in this way. This
may make SVD more advantageous in some situations, though zero
padding and windowing can often be used to avoid edge effects in
Fourier deconvolution.
References
1.Ostergaard L et al, Magn Reson Med 36:715 (1996)
2.Wirestam R et al, Magn Reson Med 43:691 (2000)
3.Liu HL et al, Magn Reson Med 42:167 (1999)

M can also be diagonalized by the Fourier transformation as a result of

the convolution theorem. In this case, U and V are the forward and
reverse Fourier transforms and the diagonal values of W are simply the
Fourier transformation of the input function.

Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med 9 (2001)

1581

Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med 9 (2001)

1581