Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 29–43 | Cite as

Denoising performance of modified dual-tree complex wavelet transform for processing quadrature embolic Doppler signals

  • Gorkem Serbes
  • Nizamettin AydinEmail author
Original Article


Quadrature signals are dual-channel signals obtained from the systems employing quadrature demodulation. Embolic Doppler ultrasound signals obtained from stroke-prone patients by using Doppler ultrasound systems are quadrature signals caused by emboli, which are particles bigger than red blood cells within circulatory system. Detection of emboli is an important step in diagnosing stroke. Most widely used parameter in detection of emboli is embolic signal-to-background signal ratio. Therefore, in order to increase this ratio, denoising techniques are employed in detection systems. Discrete wavelet transform has been used for denoising of embolic signals, but it lacks shift invariance property. Instead, dual-tree complex wavelet transform having near-shift invariance property can be used. However, it is computationally expensive as two wavelet trees are required. Recently proposed modified dual-tree complex wavelet transform, which reduces the computational complexity, can also be used. In this study, the denoising performance of this method is extensively evaluated and compared with the others by using simulated and real quadrature signals. The quantitative results demonstrated that the modified dual-tree-complex-wavelet-transform-based denoising outperforms the conventional discrete wavelet transform with the same level of computational complexity and exhibits almost equal performance to the dual-tree complex wavelet transform with almost half computational cost.


Quadrature signal Complex wavelet transform Denoising Embolic signals 


  1. 1.
    Achim A, Bezerianos A, Tsakalides P (2001) Novel Bayesian multiscale method for speckle removal in medical ultrasound images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20(8):772–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ackerstaff RG, Babikian VL, Georgiadis D, Russell D, Siebler M, Spencer MP, Stump D (1995) Basic identification criteria of Doppler microembolic signals. Stroke 26:1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aydin N, Evans DH (1994) Implementation of directional Doppler techniques using a digital signal processor. Med Biol Eng Comput 32:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aydin N, Fan L, Evans DH (1994) Quadrature-to-directional format conversion of Doppler signals using digital methods. Physiol Meas 15:181–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aydin N, Marvasti F, Markus HS (2002) Effect of wavelet denoising on time-frequency and time-scale analysis of quadrature embolic signals. In: Proceedings of 24th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, Houston, pp 80–81Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aydin N, Marvasti F, Markus HS (2004) Embolic Doppler ultrasound signal detection using discrete wavelet transform. IEEE Trans Inf Tech Biomed 8(2):182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boashash B (1992) Estimating and interpreting the instantaneous frequency of a signal: a tutorial review—part 2: algorithms and applications. Proc IEEE 80:539–568Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brigham EO (1974) The fast Fourier transform. Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang SG, Yu B, Vetterli M (2000) Adaptive wavelet thresholding for image denoising and compression. Trans Image Process 9(9):1532–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen L (1989) Time-frequency distributions—a review. Proc IEEE 77(7):941–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donoho DL (1995) Denoising by soft-thresholding. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 41:613–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Donoho DL, Johnstone IM (1994) Ideal spatial adaptation via wavelet shrinkage. Biometrika 81:425–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donoho DL, Johnstone IM (1995) Adapting to unknown smoothness via wavelet shrinkage. J Am Stat Assoc 90(432):1200–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donoho DL, Johnstone IM (1998) Minimax estimation via wavelet shrinkage. Ann Stat 26(3):879–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans DH, McDicken WN, Skidmore R, Woodcock JP (1989) Doppler Ultrasound: Physics, Instrumentation and Clinical Applications. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fan L, Evans DH, Naylor AR, Tortoli P (2004) Real-time identification and archival of microembolic Doppler signals using a knowledge-based system. Med Biol Eng Comput 42:193–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kingsbury NG (1998) The dual-tree complex wavelet transform: a new technique for shift invariance and directional filters. IEEE Digital Signal Process Workshop Bryce Canyon 86:319–322Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kingsbury NG (1999) Image processing with complex wavelets. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 357:2543–2560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krim H, Tucker D, Mallat S, Donoho D (1999) On denoising and best signal representation. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 45(7):2225–2238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li H, Zhang Y, Xu D (2010) Noise and speckle reduction in Doppler blood flow spectrograms using an adaptive pulse-coupled neural network. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process. doi: 10.1155/2010/918015
  21. 21.
    Markus H (1993) Transcranial Doppler detection of circulating cerebral emboli. A review. Stroke 24(8):1246–1250 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Markus HS, Harrison MJ (1995) Microembolic signal detection using ultrasound. Stroke 26:1517–1519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Markus HS, Molloy J (1997) The use of a decibel threshold in the detection of embolic signals. Stroke 28:692–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Markus HS, Reid G (1999) Frequency filtering improves ultrasonic embolic signal detection. Ultrasound Med Biol 25:857–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Markus H, Loh A, Brown MM (1993) Computerized detection of cerebral emboli and discrimination from artifact using Doppler ultrasound. Stroke 24(11):1667–1672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marvasti S, Gillies D, Marvasti F, Markus HS (2004) Online automated detection of cerebral embolic signals using a wavelet based system. Ultrasound in Med Biol 30:647–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marvasti S, Gillies D, Markus HS (2004) Novel intelligent wavelet filtering of embolic signals from TCD ultrasound. Conference record of the thirty-eighth Asilomar conference on signals, systems and computers, vol 2, pp 1580–1584Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pasti L, Walczak B, Massart DL, Reschiglian P (1999) Optimization of signal denoising in discrete wavelet transform. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 48:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Selesnick IW, Baraniuk RG, Kingsbury NG (2005) The dual-tree complex wavelet transform. IEEE Signal Process Mag 22(6):123–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Serbes G, Aydin N, (2009) A complex discrete wavelet transform for processing quadrature Doppler ultrasound signals. In: 9th international conference on information technology and applications in biomedicine ITAB 2009Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Serbes G, Aydin N, (2010) Denoising performance of modified dual tree complex wavelet transform. In: 10th international conference on information technology and applications in biomedicine ITAB 2010, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Serbes G, Aydin N (2011) Modified dual tree complex wavelet transform for processing quadrature signals. Biomed Signal Process Control 6(3):301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spencer MP, Thomas GI, Nicholls SC, Sauvage LR (1990) Detection of middle cerebral artery emboli during carotid endarterectomy using transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. Stroke 21:415–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Taswell C (2000) The what, how, and why of wavelet shrinkage denoising. Comput Sci Eng 2(3):12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yoon BJ, Vaidyanathan PP (2004) Wavelet-based denoising by customized thresholding. IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Process 2:925–928Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang Y, Wang L, Gao Y, Chen J, Shi X (2007) Noise reduction in Doppler ultrasound signals using an adaptive decomposition algorithm. Med Eng Phys 29(6):699–707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biomedical Engineering DepartmentBahcesehir UniversityBeşiktaş, IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Computer Engineering Department, Faculty of Electrical and ElectronicsYildiz Technical UniversityEsenler, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations