Advertisement

Side lobe free medical ultrasonic imaging with application to assessing side lobe suppression filter

Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

When focusing using an ultrasonic transducer array, a main lobe is formed in the focal region of an ultrasound field, but side lobes also arise around the focal region due to the leakage. Since the side lobes cannot be completely eliminated in the focusing process, they are responsible for subsequent ultrasound image quality degradation. To improve ultrasound image quality, a signal processing strategy to reduce side lobes is definitely in demand. To this end, quantitative determination of main and side lobes is necessary. We propose a theoretically and actually error-free method of exactly discriminating and separately computing the main lobe and side lobe parts in ultrasound image by computer simulation. We refer to images constructed using the main and side lobe signals as the main and side lobe images, respectively. Since the main and side lobe images exactly represent their main and side lobe components, respectively, they can be used to evaluate ultrasound image quality. Defining the average brightness of the main and side lobe images, the conventional to side lobe image ratio, and the main to side lobe image ratio as image quality metrics, we can evaluate image characteristics in speckle images. The proposed method is also applied in assessing the performance of side lobe suppression filtering. We show that the proposed method may greatly aid in the evaluation of medical ultrasonic images using computer simulations, albeit lacking the use of actual experimental data.

Keywords

Filter evaluation Main lobe Side lobe Side lobe suppression Speckle Ultrasonic image 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Daejin University Research Grants in 2018.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Macovski A. Medical imaging systems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jensen JA, Svendsen NB. Calculation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 1992;39(2):262–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holfort IK, Gran F, Jensen JA. Broadband minimum variance beamforming for ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2009;56(2):314–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim K, Park S, Kim J, Park SB, Bae M. A fast minimum variance beamforming method using principal component analysis. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2014;61(6):930–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seo CH, Yen JT. Sidelobe suppression in ultrasound imaging using dual apodization with cross-correlation. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008;55(10):2198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wagner RF, Smith SW, Sandrik JM, Lopez H. Statistics of speckle in ultrasound B-scans. IEEE Trans Sonics Ultrason. 1983;30(3):156–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keitman-Curdes O, Brendel B, Marg C, Ermert H. Optimization of apodizations based on the sidelobe pressure energy in simulated ultrasound fields. In: Proceedings of IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium Conference; 2003. p. 1677–80.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vignon F, Burcher MR. Capon beamforming in medical ultrasound imaging with focused beams. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008;55(3):619–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Asl BM, Mahloojifar A. Minimum variance beamforming combined with adaptive coherence weighting applied to ultrasound medical imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2009;56(9):1923–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asl BM, Mahloojifar A. Eigenspace-based minimum variance beamforming applied to medical ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2010;57(11):2381–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li PC, Li ML. Adaptive imaging using the generalized coherence factor. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2003;50(2):128–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lediju MA, Trahey GE, Byram BC, Dahl JJ. Short-lag spatial coherence of backscattered echoes: imaging characteristics. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2011;58(7):1377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeong MK. A Fourier transform-based sidelobe suppression method in ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2000;47(3):759–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jeong MK, Kwon SJ. Estimation of side lobes in ultrasound imaging systems. Biomed Eng Lett. 2015;5(3):229–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jeong MK, Kwon SJ. A novel side lobe estimation method in medical ultrasound imaging systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium Conference; 2015.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kwon SJ, Jeong MK. Estimation and suppression of side lobes in medical ultrasound imaging systems. Biomed Eng Lett. 2017;7(1):31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Synnevåg JF, Austeng A, Holm S. Minimum variance adaptive beamforming applied to medical ultrasound imaging. In: Proceedings of IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium Conference; 2005. p. 1199–202.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Synnevåg JF, Austeng A, Holm S. Adaptive beamforming applied to medical ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2007;54(8):1606–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Medical and Biological Engineering and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronic EngineeringDaejin UniversityPocheonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Division of Human IT Convergence EngineeringDaejin UniversityPocheonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations