The vasculature of one subject.

<p>The vasculature of one subject.</p

Reconstruction results.

<p>Reconstruction results of the brain phantom (left) and Zubal phantom (right) for different numbers of nodes in the hidden layers.</p

Reconstruction results.

<p>Reconstruction results of the brain phantom (left) and Zubal phantom (right) for different size of patches.</p

Real heart data reconstructed results.

<p>From left to right: Reconstruction result by the MLEM algorithm for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th frames, our result for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th frames.</p

Results of a two-node DCM analysis applied to the flashing checkerboard experiment.

<p>The coupling parameters calculated with actual are shown alongside the corresponding connections. The values in brackets are parameters estimated with assumed . in visual area V, in V and assumed in two areas. and represent external inputs into the system; and are the hemodynamic observations and arrows indicate connections.</p

Zubal phantom reconstruction results comparison.

<p>Zubal phantom reconstruction results comparison.</p

Monte Carlo simulation results.

<p>Monte Carlo simulation brain phantom data (left) and Zubal phantom data (right).</p

Reconstruction results for the Zubal phantom data.

<p>Reconstruction results for the Zubal phantom data using the MLEM algorithm (top row) and MLEM+SAE (second row) with a brain phantom for training. From left to right: the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th frames.</p

Brain phantom reconstruction results for the local patch.

<p>First row: ground truth for the 3rd frame, ground truth for the local patch. Second row: reconstruction result for local patch by MLEM, reconstruction result for local patch by MLEM+SAE.</p

Zubal phantom reconstruction results comparison with different counting rates.

<p>Zubal phantom reconstruction results comparison with different counting rates.</p