Generalized Cystic Resolution: a Metric for Assessing the Fundamental Limits on Beamformer Performance
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Existing methods for characterizing the imaging performance of ultrasound systems do not clearly quantify the impact of contrast, spatial resolution, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Although the beamplot, contrast resolution metrics, SNR measurements, ideal observer methods, and contrast-detail analysis provide useful information, it remains difficult to discern how changes in system parameters affect these metrics and clinical imaging performance. In this paper, we present a rigorous methodology for characterizing the pulse-echo imaging performance of arbitrary ultrasound systems. Our metric incorporates the 4-D spatio-temporal system response, which is defined as a function of the individual beamformer channel weights. The metric also incorporates the individual beamformer channel electronic SNR. Whereas earlier performance measures dealt solely with contrast resolution or echo signal-to-noise ratio, our metric combines them so that tradeoffs between these parameters are easily distinguishable. The new metric quantifies an arbitrary system's contrast resolution and SNR performance as a function of cyst size, beamformer channel weights, and beamformer channel SNR. We present a theoretical derivation of the unified performance metric and provide simulation and experimental results highlighting the metric's utility. We compare the fundamental performance limits of 2 beamforming strategies: the dynamic focus finite impulse response (FIR) filter beamformer and the spatial matched filter (SMF) beamformer to the performance of the conventional delay-and-sum (DAS) beamformer. Results from this study show that the SMF beamformer and the FIR beamformer offer significant gains in beamformer SNR and contrast resolution compared with the DAS beamformer, respectively. The metric clearly distinguishes the performance of the SMF beamformer, which enhances system sensitivity, from the FIR beamformer, which optimizes system contrast resolution. Finally, the metric provides one quantitative goal for optimizing a broadband beamformer?s contrast resolution performance.
Histogram Matching for Visual Ultrasound Image Comparison.
Bottenus N, Byram B, Hyun D IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2020; 68(5):1487-1495.
PMID: 33147144 PMC: 8136614. DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2020.3035965.
Virtual clinical trials in medical imaging: a review.
Abadi E, Segars W, Tsui B, Kinahan P, Bottenus N, Frangi A J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2020; 7(4):042805.
PMID: 32313817 PMC: 7148435. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.7.4.042805.
Linear System Models for Ultrasonic Imaging: Intensity Signal Statistics.
Abbey C, Zhu Y, Bahramian S, Insana M IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2017; 64(4):669-678.
PMID: 28092533 PMC: 5480407. DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2017.2652451.
Ultrasonic multipath and beamforming clutter reduction: a chirp model approach.
Byram B, Jakovljevic M IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2014; 61(3):428-40.
PMID: 24569248 PMC: 4090329. DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2014.2928.
Filoux E, Mamou J, Aristizabal O, Ketterling J IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2011; 58(5):994-1005.
PMID: 21622055 PMC: 3105360. DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2011.1990.