Premium
ULTRASOUND IMAGE COMPOUNDING: EFFECT ON PERCEIVED IMAGE QUALITY
Author(s) -
WHATMOUGH CHARLOTTE,
GUITIAN JAVIER,
BAINES ELIZABETH,
BENIGNI LIVIA,
MAHONEY PAUL N.,
MANTIS POMAGIOTIS,
LAMB CHRISTOPHER R.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
veterinary radiology and ultrasound
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.541
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1740-8261
pISSN - 1058-8183
DOI - 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2007.00221.x
Subject(s) - compounding , image quality , medicine , transducer , quality (philosophy) , artificial intelligence , computer vision , orientation (vector space) , noise (video) , ultrasound , image (mathematics) , acoustics , computer science , radiology , mathematics , philosophy , physics , geometry , nursing , epistemology
In order to determine the effect of different image compounding functions on perceived image quality, 84 pairs of ultrasound images were collected, mixed, and reviewed by four independent observers who were asked to identify the highest quality image of each pair. Each image in a pair was made using the same orientation, transducer, frequency, and gain settings but different compounding settings. Outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression. Observers judged compound images to be better quality than noncompound images in 69% cases, the same quality in 24%, and poorer quality in 7%. Overall, compound images were considered significantly better quality than noncompound images ( P <0.001). Compound images were more likely to be considered better quality than the corresponding noncompound images when combined transmit/receive spatial compounding was used rather than receive‐only spatial compounding or transmit compounding, and when the vector transducer or the curvilinear transducer were used rather than the linear transducer. Observers considered improved border definition and increased signal to noise ratio to be the properties that accounted most often for higher quality of compound images compared with noncompound images.