Open AccessHigh-frame-rate volume imaging using sparse-random-aperture compounding
Author(s) -
Miguel Bernal,
Bryan W. Cunitz,
Daniel Rohrbach,
Ron Daigle
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
physics in medicine and biology/physics in medicine and biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1361-6560
pISSN - 0031-9155
DOI - 10.1088/1361-6560/ab9372
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , frame rate , multiplexer , frame (networking) , compounding , image quality , computer science , aperture (computer memory) , volume (thermodynamics) , biomedical engineering , optics , physics , artificial intelligence , materials science , acoustics , image (mathematics) , multiplexing , medicine , telecommunications , quantum mechanics , composite material
High-frame-rate volume imaging (HFR-VI) aims to provide high-quality images with high-temporal information. Despite its potential, HFR-VI translation into clinical applications has been challenging due to the high cost of the equipment required to drive matrix probes with a large number of elements. The goal of this study is to introduce and test sparse-random-aperture compounding (SRAC), a technique that allows use of matrix probes with an ultrasound system that has fewer channels while maintaining high frame rates. Four scanning methods were implemented with a 256-channel system using a 4-to-1 multiplexer and a 3 MHz matrix probe with 1024 elements. These methods used three types of waves, either single-diverging waves (SDW), multiplane-diverging waves (MDW) or wide beams (WB); and were driven using one to four SRAC. All methods were also implemented in a 1024-channel multisystem. The main-lobe-to-side-lobe ratio (MLSLR) and the contrast ratio (CR) were studied using a string phantom and a CIRS phantom, respectively. The results showed an increase in the MLSLR and CR as a function of the number of SRAC. The multisystem provided the best results for the MLSLR. However, four SRAC outperformed the multisystem with respect to CR. The method using SDW provided the highest frame rates (i.e. 1875 and 7500 Hz for four and one SRAC, respectively), however it provided the lowest image quality. The two methods using MDWs showed a good compromise between image quality and frame rate (i.e. 187 to 750 Hz for four and one SRAC). WB provided the best image quality at the expense of frame rate (i.e. 18 to 75 Hz for four and one SRAC). Our results suggest that SRAC in combination with the tested scanning methods can provide a low-channel count alternative for HFR-VI systems and allows a tunable tradeoff between image quality and frame rate guided by the desired application.