A fundamental challenge in medical ultrasound imaging is to improve the resolution accurately. Adaptive beamforming is often used to improve lateral resolution, such as minimum variance (MV) and phase coherence factor (PCF). However, it is difficult to improve the axial resolution due to the limitation of the spatial pulse length (SPL) of the transmitted signal.
OBJECTIVE:
A deconvolution recovery method combines two adaptive weighting techniques to improve axial resolution.
METHODS:
A deconvolution recovery (DR) technique is used to improve axial resolution with a shorter SPL. Then, the DR is combined with MV and PCF (DR-MVPCF) to suppress the sidelobe. The influence of different transmission modes, regularization parameters, and the estimation of point spread function are discussed on the proposed algorithm.
RESULTS:
In simulation, DR-MVPCF improved axial resolution from 0.41 mm (0.98 ) to 0.09 mm (0.21 ) compared with MV-PCF. In the water bath experiment, DR-MVPCF provided improvement of axial resolution from 0.39 mm (0.93 ) to 0.07 mm (0.17 ) compared with MV-PCF. In-vivo data experiment, the DR-MVPCF method increased the speckle signal-to-noise ratio and visibility of the structure while the contrast ratio and contrast-noise ratio decreased.
CONCLUSIONS:
The proposed method can improve the axial resolution significantly.
NiedererPF. Ultrasound imaging and doppler flow velocity measurement. Technology and Health Care.2010; 18(3): 245-265.
2.
YangJChenXCaiHWangY. Generalized sidelobe canceler beamforming combined with Eigenspace-Wiener postfilter for medical ultrasound imaging. Technology and Health Care.2022; 30: 501-512.
3.
NgASwanevelderJ. Resolution in ultrasound imaging. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain.2011; 11(5): 186-192.
4.
CaponJ. High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE.1969; 57(8): 1408-1418.
5.
CamachoJParrillaMFritschC. Phase coherence imaging. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control.2009; 56(5): 958-974.
6.
JensenJA. Real Time Deconvolution of In-Vivo Ultrasound Images. IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS). 2013; 29-32.
7.
ShastriSKRudreshSAnandRNageshSSeelamantulaCSThittaiAK. Axial super-resolution in ultrasound imaging with application to non-destructive evaluation. Ultrasonics.2020; 108: 106183.
8.
JensenJAMathorneJGravesenTStageB. Deconvolution of in vivo ultrasound B-mode images. Ultrasonic Imaging.1993; 15(2): 122-133.
9.
AbeyratneURPetropuluAPReidJM. Higher order spectra based deconvolution of ultrasound images. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control.1995; 45(6): 1064-1075.
10.
MichailovichOTannenbaumA. Blind deconvolution of medical ultrasound images: A parametric inverse filtering approach. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.2007; 16(12): 3005-3019.
11.
SoussenCIdierJCarcreffESimonLPotelC. Ultrasonic non destructive testing based on sparse deconvolution. Journal of Physics Conference.2012; (353): 012018.
12.
MichailovichOVAdamD. A novel approach to the 2-D blind deconvolution problem in medical ultrasound. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.2005; 24(1): 86-104.
13.
DuanJZhongHJingBZhangSWanM. Increasing axial resolution of ultrasonic imaging with a joint sparse representation model. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control. 2016; 63(12): 2045-2056.
14.
ShinJHuangL. High-resolution synthetic aperture ultrasound imaging with minimum variance beamforming and spiking deconvolution. In: Conference on Medical Imaging – Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography.2016; 97901W.
15.
LiMShaoWJiangXFengZ. Deconvolution in intravascular ultrasound to improve lateral resolution. Ultrasonic Imaging.2019; 41(4): 191-205.
16.
TaxtT. Restoration of medical ultrasound images using two-dimensional homomorphic deconvolution. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control.1995; 42(4): 543-554.
17.
BendoryTBar-ZionAAdamDDekelSFeuerA. Stable support recovery of stream of pulses with application to ultrasound imaging. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.2016; 64(14): 3750-3759.
18.
YanXWangY. A submatrix spatial coherence approach to minimum variance beamforming combined with sign coherence factor for coherent plane wave compounding. Technology and Health Care.2022; 30: 11-25.
19.
ChenSSDonohoDLSaundersMA. Atomic decomposition by basis pursuit. Siam Journal on Scientific Computing.1998; 20(1): 33-61.
20.
GrantMBoydS. CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming, version 2.0 beta. http://cvxr.com/cvx, September 2013.
21.
GrantMBoydS. Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs, Recent Advances in Learning and Control (a tribute to M. Vidyasagar). Blondel V, Boyd S, Kimura H, editors, pages 95-110, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, Springer, 2008. http://stanford.edu/∼boyd/graph_dcp.html.
22.
SadeghiMMahloojifarA. A novel adaptive apodization to improve the resolution of phased subarray imaging in medical ultrasound. J Med Ultrasonics.2020; 47: 13-24.
23.
ChenCHansenHHGHendriksGAGMMenssenJLuJde KorteCL. Point spread function formation in plane-wave imaging: A theoretical approximation in fourier migration. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control.2020; 67(2): 296-307.
24.
XuMChenYDingMYuchiM. Adaptive minimum variance beamforming combined with phase coherence imaging for ultrasound imaging. In: Conference on Medical Imaging – Ultrasonic Imaging, Tomography, and Therapy.2012; 83200E.
25.
JensenJASvendsenNB. Calculation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control.1992; 39(2): 262-267.
26.
JensenJA. Field: A Program for Simulating Ultrasound Systems. In: 10th Nordic-Baltic Conference on Biomedical Engineering. Vol. 34. 1996. pp. 351-353.
27.
LiebgottHRodriguez-MolaresACervenanskyFJensenJA. Plane-Wave Imaging Challenge in Medical Ultrasound. IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS). 2016.
28.
LiZWiacekABellMAL. Beamforming with deep learning from single plane wave RF data. 2020 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS). 2020.
29.
Hoel RindalOMAustengARodriguez-MolaresA. Resolution Measured as Separability Compared to Full Width Half Maximum for Adaptive Beamformers. IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS). 2020.
30.
WangYZhengCZhaoXPengH. Adaptive scaling Wiener postfilter using generalized coherence factor for coherent plane-wave compounding. Computers in Biology and Medicine.2020; 116: 103564.
31.
WangSZouXZengLSongJZhouLDingM, et al. Combination of variational mode decomposition and coherent factor for ultrasound computer tomography. Technology and Health Care.2022; 30: 163-171.
32.
RindalOMHAakhusSHolmSAustengA. Hypothesis of improved visualization of microstructures in the interventricular septum with ultrasound and adaptive beamforming. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.2017; 30(10): 2494-2499.
33.
DiamantisKGreenawayAHAndersonTJensenJADalgarnoPASborosV. Super-resolution axial localization of ultrasound scatter using multi-focal imaging. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.2018; 65(8): 1840-1851.
