I am trying to understand how the depth information in SD-OCT A-scans is obtained over distances far in excess of the source coherence length.

From what I have gathered so far, it seems that the fringe frequencies within the spectrally resolved interferograms encode depth information, and that this frequency is proportional to path length difference. What I really don't understand is why, and how this information is so precise as to be allocated a specific pixel depth.

Underlying this question is also that of the importance of source bandwidth. I *think* understand the notion of coherence envelopes, and it makes sense to me that path differences corresponding to integer multiplications of the coherence length give rise to new intensity minima and maxima, ergo the axial resolution of the system. But I had considered coherence length to be an intrinsic property of the source, and yet, the spectrum must be spatially (SD-OCT) or temporally (SS-OCT) resolved into narrowband components before Fourier analysis. Am I right to assume then, that wavelength dependant information is aggregated either before or after the FFT? If so, or even if not, how does backscattered light interfere more frequently with the reference arm? (I believe that I have been misled by the false premise that light will interfere if and only if its is superposed with its identical twin "packet", where it diverged at the coupler?)

I have inspected the Fourier transform equations of intensity as a function of spectral band width and indeed, time delay (correlating to depth) is encoded. What I fail to understand is not the maths, per se, but the intuitive behaviour of the light that gives rise to these equations. A lot of the literature evaluates the maths but so far, I do not have an intuitive, or qualitative understanding of the physical waveforms interfering with the reference beam from different depths and how this translates to predictable variations in fringe pattern.

This short paper: Measurement of optical distances by optical spectrum modulation from A. F. Fercher et al. , in part describes more elegantly my clumbsy question above, but proceeds to answer the question (page two onwards) with maths that I haven't been able to interpret.

My background is biomedical, so perhaps the notation and syntax of the predominantly mathematical descriptions are a barrier to this.

Frustratingly, TD-OCT is relatively a lot simpler, and I've been able to decipher that without much ado.

Thank you in advance - I apologise for the lengthy question.

More Lydia Bradley's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions