Advertisement

Tomographic density imaging using modified DF–DBIM approach

  • Tran Quang Huy
  • Nguyen Thi Cuc
  • Van Dung Nguyen
  • Ton That Long
  • Tran Duc TanEmail author
Original Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Ultrasonic computed tomography based on back scattering theory is the most powerful and accurate tool in ultrasound based imaging approaches because it is capable of providing quantitative information about the imaged target and detects very small targets. The duple-frequency distorted Born iterative method (DF–DBIM), which uses density information along with sound contrast for imaging, is a promising approach for imaging targets at the level of biological tissues. With two frequencies f1 (low) and f2 (high) through \({\mathbf{N}}_{{{\mathbf{f}}_{1}}}\) and \({\mathbf{N}}_{{{\mathbf{f}}_{2}}}\) iterations respectively, this method is used to estimate target density along with sound contrast. The implications of duple-frequency fusion for the image reconstruction quality of density information along with sound contrast based ultrasound tomography have been analyzed in this paper. In this paper, we concentrate on the selection of parameters that is supposed to be the best to improve the reconstruction quality of ultrasound tomography. When there are restraints imposed on simulated scenarios to have control of the computational cost, the iteration number \({\mathbf{N}}_{{{\mathbf{f}}_{1}}}\) is determined resulting in giving the best performance. The DF–DBIM is only effective if there are a moderate number of iterations, transmitters and receivers. In case that the number of transducers is either too large or too small, a result of reconstruction which is better than that of the single frequency approach is not produced by the implementation of DF–DBIM. A fixed sum \({\mathbf{N}}_{{{\mathbf{iter}} }}\) of \({\mathbf{N}}_{{{\mathbf{f}}_{1}}}\) and \({\mathbf{N}}_{{{\mathbf{f}}_{2}}}\) was given, the investigation of simulation results shows that the best value of \({\mathbf{N}}_{{{\mathbf{f}}_{1}}}\) is \(\left[{\frac{{{\mathbf{N}}_{{{\mathbf{iter}}}}}}{2} - 1} \right]\). The error, when applying this way of choosing the parameters, will be normalized with the reduction of 56.11%, compared to use single frequency as used in the conventional DBIM method. The target density along with sound contrast is used to image targets in this paper. It is a fact that low-frequency offers fine convergence, and high-frequency offers fine spatial resolution. Wherefore, this technique can effectively expand DBIM’s applicability to the problem of biological tissue reconstruction. Thanks to the usage of empirical data, this work will be further developed prior to its application in reality.

Keywords

Ultrasound tomography Distorted Born iterative method (DBIM) Density imaging Inverse scattering Duple frequency (DF) 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

References

  1. 1.
    Pierce AD, Beyer RT. Acoustics: an introduction to its physical principles and applications. In: Acoustical society of America. 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jonathan M, Michael O. Quantitative ultrasound in soft tissues. Heidelberg: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goss SA, Johnston RL, Dunn F. Comprehensive compilation of empirical ultrasonic properties of mammalian tissues. J Acoust Soc Am. 1978;64(2):423–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goss SA, Johnston RL, Dunn F. Compilation of empirical ultrasonic properties of mammalian tissues II. J Acoust Soc Am. 1980;68(1):93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mast TD. Empirical relationships between acoustic parameters in human soft tissues. Acoustics Research Letters Online. 2000;1(2):37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang JN, Murphy AD, Madsen EL, et al. A method for in vitro mapping of ultrasonic speed and density in breast tissue. Ultrason Imaging. 1991;13(1):91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nassiri DK, Hill CR. The use of angular acoustic scattering measurements to estimate structural parameters of human and animal tissues. J Acoust Soc Am. 1986;79(6):2048–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waag RC, Dalecki D, Christopher PE. Spectral power determinations of compressibility and density variations in model media and calf liver using ultrasound. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;85(1):423–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Devaney AJ. Inversion formula for inverse scattering within the Born approximation. Opt Lett. 1982;7(3):111–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slaney M, Kak AC, Larson LE. Limitations of imaging with first order diffraction tomography. IEEE Trans Microwave Theory Tech. 1984;32(8):860–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lavarello R, Michael O. Density imaging using a multiple-frequency DBIM approach. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2010;57(11):2471–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tijhuis AG, Belkebir K, Litman ACS, et al. Multiple-frequency distorted-wave Born approach to 2D inverse profiling. Inverse Prob. 2001;17(6):1635–44.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tran Q-H, Tran D-T, Huynh HT, Long T-T, Nguyen L-T. Influence of dual-frequency combination on the quality improvement of ultrasound tomography. Simulation. 2016;92(3):267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lavarello R, Michael O. Tomographic reconstruction of three-dimensional volumes using the distorted born iterative method. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28(10):1643–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Golub GH, Hansen PC, O’Leary DP. Tikhonov regularization and total least squares. SIAM J Matrix Anal Appl. 1999;21(1):185–94.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lavarello R, Michael O. A study on the reconstruction of moderate contrast targets using the distorted Born iterative method. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2008;55(1):112–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lavarello Roberto J, Oelze Michael L. Density imaging using inverse scattering. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;125(2):793–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lavarello RJ, Oelze ML. Two approaches for tomographic density imaging using inverse scattering. In: 2008 IEEE ultrasonics symposium. IEEE, 2008. p. 1298–1301.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lavarello R. New developments on quantitative imaging using ultrasonic waves, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kak AC, Slaney M. Principles of computerized tomographic imaging. New York: IEEE Press; 2001. p. 248–9.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Medical and Biological Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhysicsHanoi Pedagogical University 2Phuc Yen TownVietnam
  2. 2.Hanoi Medical UniversityHanoiVietnam
  3. 3.NTT Hi-Tech InstituteNguyen Tat Thanh UniversityHo Chi Minh CityViet Nam
  4. 4.School of Electrical EngineeringVNU International University, HoChiMinhHo Chi Minh CityVietnam
  5. 5.Faculty of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringPhenikaa UniversityHanoiVietnam
  6. 6.Phenikaa Research and Technology Institute (PRATI)A&A Green Phoenix Group JSCHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations