Wavelet-based statistical approach for speckle reduction in medical ultrasound images



A novel speckle-reduction method is introduced, based on soft thresholding of the wavelet coefficients of a logarithmically transformed medical ultrasound image. The method is based on the generalised Gaussian distributed (GGD) modelling of sub-band coefficients. The method used was a variant of the recently published BayesShrink method by Chang and Vetterli, derived in the Bayesian framework for denoising natural images. It was scale adaptive, because the parameters required for estimating the threshold depend on scale and sub-band data. The threshold was computed by Kσ/σx, where σ and σx were the standard deviation of the noise and the sub-band data of the noise-free image, respectively, and K was a scale parameter. Experimental results showed that the proposed method outperformed the median filter and the homomorphic Wiener filter by 29% in terms of the coefficient of correlation and 4% in terms of the edge preservation parameter. The numerical values of these quantitative parameters indicated the good feature preservation performance of the algorithm, as desired for better diagnosis in medical image processing.


Discrete wavelet transform Speckle reduction Soft thresholding Wiener filter Median filter BayesShrink 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Achim, A., Bezerianos, A., andTsakalides, P. (2001) ‘Novel Bayesian multiscale method for speckle removal in medical ultrasound images’,IEEE Trans. Med. Imag.,20, pp. 772–783Google Scholar
  2. Arsenault, H. H., andApril, G. (1976): ‘Properties of speckle integrated with a finite aperture and logarithmically transformed’,J. Opt. Soc. Am.,66, 1160–1163Google Scholar
  3. Chang, G., Yu B., andVetterli, M. (2000): ‘Spatially adaptive wavelet thresholding with context modelling for image denoising’,IEEE Trans. Image. Proc.,9, pp. 1522–1531MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Chivers, R. C., Davies, I. J., andDuarte, F. M. (1986): ‘Perceptual studies and ultrasonic B-scam textures’,Phys. Med. Biol.,31, pp. 627–634Google Scholar
  5. Donoho, D. L., andJohnstone, I. M. (1994): ‘Ideal spatial adaptation via wavelet shrinkage’,Biometrica,81, pp. 425–455MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Donolho, D. L. (1995): ‘Denoising by soft-thresholding’,IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,41, pp. 613–627Google Scholar
  7. Donolho, D. L., andJohnstone, I. M. (1995): ‘Adapting to unknown smoothness via wavelet shrinkage’,J. Am. Stat. Assoc.,90, pp. 1200–1224Google Scholar
  8. Ghofrani, S., Jahed-Motlagh, M. R., andAyotollahi, A. (2001): ‘An adaptive speckle suppression filter based on Nakagami distribution’ (IEEE, 2001)Google Scholar
  9. Goodman, J. W. (1976): ‘Some fundamental properties of Speckle’,J. Opt. Soc. Am.,66, pp. 1145–1150Google Scholar
  10. Guo, H., Odegard, M. L., Gopinath, R. A., Selesnick, I. W., andBurrus, C. S. (1994): ‘Wavelet based speckle reduction with application to SAR based ATD/R’,Proc. ICIP, Vol.1, pp. 75–79Google Scholar
  11. Gupta, S., andKaur, L. (2002): ‘Wavelet based image compression using Daubechies filters’.8th Nat. Conf. on Communications, IIT, BombayGoogle Scholar
  12. Jain, A. K. (1989): ‘Fundamentals of digital image processing’ (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989)Google Scholar
  13. Jansene, M. (2001): ‘Noise reduction using wavelets, Lecture series in Statistics’, (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001)Google Scholar
  14. Joshi, R. L., Crump, V. J., andFisher, T. R. (1995): ‘Image subband coding using arithmetic and trellis coded quantization’,IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol.,5, pp. 515–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kremkau, F. W., andTaylor, K. J. W. (1986): ‘Artefacts in ultrasound imaging’,J. Ultrasound Med.,5, pp. 227–237Google Scholar
  16. Loannidis, A., Kazakos, D., andWatson, D. D. (1984): ‘Application of median filtering on nuclear medicine scintigram images’,Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Pattern Recognition, pp. 33–36Google Scholar
  17. Loupas, T., McDicken, W. N., andAllen, P. L. (1987): ‘Noise reduction in ultrasonic images by digital filtering’,Br. J. Radiol.,60, pp. 389–392Google Scholar
  18. Lowe, H., Bamber, J. C., Webb, S., andCook-Martin, G. (1988): ‘Perceptual studies of contrast, texture and detail in ultrasound B-scans’,SPIE Proc.,914, pp. 40–47Google Scholar
  19. Mallat, S. (1989): ‘A theory for multiresolution signal decomposition: the wavelet representation’,IEEE Trans. Patterns Anal. Mach. Intell.,11, pp. 674–692MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Mallat, S., (1998): ‘A wavelet tour of signal processing’ (Academic Press, New York, 1998)Google Scholar
  21. Ritenour, E. R., Nelson, T. R., andRaff, U. (1984): ‘Application of median filter to digital readiographic images’.Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech, Signal Processing, pp. 23.1.1–23.1.4Google Scholar
  22. Sattar, F., Floreby, L., Salomonsson, G., andLovstrom, B. (1997): ‘Image enhancement based on a nonlinear multiscale method’,IEEE Trans. Image Proc.,6, pp. 888–895Google Scholar
  23. Simoncelli, E. P., andAdelson, E. H. (1996): ‘Noise removal via Bayesian wavelet coring’,Third Int. Conf. Image Processing,1, pp. 379–382Google Scholar
  24. Smith, S. W., andLopez, H. (1982): ‘A contrast detail analysis of diagnostic ultrasound imaging’,Med. Phys.,9, pp. 4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stein, C. M. (1981): ‘Estimation of the mean of a multivariate normal distribution’,Ann. Statist.,9, pp. 1135–1151MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFMBE 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science & EngineeringSant Longowal Institute of Engineering & TechnologyLongowalIndia
  2. 2.Thapar Institute of Engineering & TechnologyPatialaIndia

Personalised recommendations