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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Valente, Solivan A., Zibetti, Marcelo V. W., Pipa, Daniel R., Maia, Joaquim M., Schneider, Fabio K.
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