Cargando…
An Assessment of Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Sparse Ultrasound Imaging
Ultrasonic image reconstruction using inverse problems has recently appeared as an alternative to enhance ultrasound imaging over beamforming methods. This approach depends on the accuracy of the acquisition model used to represent transducers, reflectivity, and medium physics. Iterative methods, we...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5375819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28282862 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s17030533 |
_version_ | 1782519063774232576 |
---|---|
author | Valente, Solivan A. Zibetti, Marcelo V. W. Pipa, Daniel R. Maia, Joaquim M. Schneider, Fabio K. |
author_facet | Valente, Solivan A. Zibetti, Marcelo V. W. Pipa, Daniel R. Maia, Joaquim M. Schneider, Fabio K. |
author_sort | Valente, Solivan A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Ultrasonic image reconstruction using inverse problems has recently appeared as an alternative to enhance ultrasound imaging over beamforming methods. This approach depends on the accuracy of the acquisition model used to represent transducers, reflectivity, and medium physics. Iterative methods, well known in general sparse signal reconstruction, are also suited for imaging. In this paper, a discrete acquisition model is assessed by solving a linear system of equations by an [Formula: see text]-regularized least-squares minimization, where the solution sparsity may be adjusted as desired. The paper surveys 11 variants of four well-known algorithms for sparse reconstruction, and assesses their optimization parameters with the goal of finding the best approach for iterative ultrasound imaging. The strategy for the model evaluation consists of using two distinct datasets. We first generate data from a synthetic phantom that mimics real targets inside a professional ultrasound phantom device. This dataset is contaminated with Gaussian noise with an estimated SNR, and all methods are assessed by their resulting images and performances. The model and methods are then assessed with real data collected by a research ultrasound platform when scanning the same phantom device, and results are compared with beamforming. A distinct real dataset is finally used to further validate the proposed modeling. Although high computational effort is required by iterative methods, results show that the discrete model may lead to images closer to ground-truth than traditional beamforming. However, computing capabilities of current platforms need to evolve before frame rates currently delivered by ultrasound equipments are achievable. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5375819 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53758192017-04-10 An Assessment of Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Sparse Ultrasound Imaging Valente, Solivan A. Zibetti, Marcelo V. W. Pipa, Daniel R. Maia, Joaquim M. Schneider, Fabio K. Sensors (Basel) Article Ultrasonic image reconstruction using inverse problems has recently appeared as an alternative to enhance ultrasound imaging over beamforming methods. This approach depends on the accuracy of the acquisition model used to represent transducers, reflectivity, and medium physics. Iterative methods, well known in general sparse signal reconstruction, are also suited for imaging. In this paper, a discrete acquisition model is assessed by solving a linear system of equations by an [Formula: see text]-regularized least-squares minimization, where the solution sparsity may be adjusted as desired. The paper surveys 11 variants of four well-known algorithms for sparse reconstruction, and assesses their optimization parameters with the goal of finding the best approach for iterative ultrasound imaging. The strategy for the model evaluation consists of using two distinct datasets. We first generate data from a synthetic phantom that mimics real targets inside a professional ultrasound phantom device. This dataset is contaminated with Gaussian noise with an estimated SNR, and all methods are assessed by their resulting images and performances. The model and methods are then assessed with real data collected by a research ultrasound platform when scanning the same phantom device, and results are compared with beamforming. A distinct real dataset is finally used to further validate the proposed modeling. Although high computational effort is required by iterative methods, results show that the discrete model may lead to images closer to ground-truth than traditional beamforming. However, computing capabilities of current platforms need to evolve before frame rates currently delivered by ultrasound equipments are achievable. MDPI 2017-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5375819/ /pubmed/28282862 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s17030533 Text en © 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Valente, Solivan A. Zibetti, Marcelo V. W. Pipa, Daniel R. Maia, Joaquim M. Schneider, Fabio K. An Assessment of Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Sparse Ultrasound Imaging |
title | An Assessment of Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Sparse Ultrasound Imaging |
title_full | An Assessment of Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Sparse Ultrasound Imaging |
title_fullStr | An Assessment of Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Sparse Ultrasound Imaging |
title_full_unstemmed | An Assessment of Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Sparse Ultrasound Imaging |
title_short | An Assessment of Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Sparse Ultrasound Imaging |
title_sort | assessment of iterative reconstruction methods for sparse ultrasound imaging |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5375819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28282862 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s17030533 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT valentesolivana anassessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging AT zibettimarcelovw anassessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging AT pipadanielr anassessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging AT maiajoaquimm anassessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging AT schneiderfabiok anassessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging AT valentesolivana assessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging AT zibettimarcelovw assessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging AT pipadanielr assessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging AT maiajoaquimm assessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging AT schneiderfabiok assessmentofiterativereconstructionmethodsforsparseultrasoundimaging |