Hand-Held Sound-Speed Imaging Based on Ultrasound Reflector Delineation

  • Sergio J. Sanabria
  • Orcun Goksel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9900)


A novel hand-held speed-of-sound (SoS) imaging method is proposed, which requires only minor hardware extensions to conventional ultrasound (US) B-mode systems. A hand-held reflector is used as a timing reference for US signals. A robust reflector-detection algorithm, based on dynamic programming (DP), achieves unambiguous timing even with 10 dB signal-to-noise ratio in real tissues, successfully detecting delays <100 ns introduced by SoS heterogeneities. An Anisotropically-Weighted Total-Variation (AWTV) regularization based on L1-norm smoothness reconstruction is shown to achieve significant improvements in the delineation of focal lesions. The Contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) is improved from 15 dB to 37 dB, and the axial resolution loss from >300 % to <15 %. Experiments with breast-mimicking phantoms and ex-vivo liver samples showed, for hard hypoechogenic inclusions not visible in B-mode US, a high SoS contrast (2.6 %) with respect to cystic inclusions (0.9 %) and the background SoS noise (0.6 %). We also tested our method on a healthy volunteer in a preliminary in-vivo test. The proposed technique demonstrates potential for low-cost and non-ionizing screening, as well as for diagnostics in daily clinical routine.


Streak Artifact Cystic Inclusion Hard Inclusion Daily Clinical Routine Real Tissue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.


  1. 1.
    Crimi, A., Makhinya, M., Baumann, U., Thalhammer, C., et al.: Automatic measurement of venous pressure using B-mode ultrasound. IEEE TMI 63, 288–299 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duric, N., Littrup, P., Li, C., Roy, O., Schmidt, S., et al.: Breast imaging with softVue: initial clinical examination. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, pp. 90400V (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duric, N., Littrup, P., Poulo, L., Babkin, A., Pevzner, R., Holsapple, E.: Detection of breast cancer with ultrasound tomography: first results with the computer ultrasound risk evaluation (cure) prototype. Med. Phys. 34, 773–785 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foroughi, P., Boctor, E., et al.: Ultrasound bone segmentation using dynamic programming. In: IEEE Ultras Symposium, New York, NY, USA, pp. 2523–2526 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gemmeke, H., Ruiter, N.V.: 3D ultrasound computer tomography for medical imaging. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 580, 1057–1065 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang, S.W., Pai-Chi, L.: Ultrasonic computed tomography reconstruction of the attenuation coefficient using a linear array. IEEE TUFFC 52, 2011–2022 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kak, A.C., Slaney, M.: Principles of computerized tomographic imaging. IEEE Press, New York (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kolb, T.M., Lichy, J., Newhouse, J.H.: Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast us and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluation. Radiology 225, 165–175 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krueger, M., Burow, V., et al.: Limited-angle us transmission tomography of the compressed female breast. In: IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, Miyagi, Japan, pp. 1345–1348 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nebeker, J., Nelson, T.R.: Imaging of sound speed using reflection ultrasound tomography. J. Ultrasound Med. 31, 1389–1404 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Radovan, J., Peterlik, I., et al.: Sound-speed image reconstruction in sparse-aperture 3-D us transmission tomography. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr., Freq. Control 59, 254–264 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanabria, S.J., Hilbers, U., et al.: Modeling and prediction of density distribution and microstructure in particleboards from acoustic properties by correlation of non-contact high-resolution pulsed air-coupled ultrasound and X-ray images. Ultrasonics 53, 157–170 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siu, A., U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann. Int. Med. 164(4), 279–296 (2016). doi: 10.7326/M15-2886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer-assisted Applications in MedicineETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations