» Articles » PMID: 31370607

Effects of Acoustic Nonlinearities on the Ultrasonic Backscatter Coefficient Estimation

Overview
Journal J Acoust Soc Am
Date 2019 Aug 3
PMID 31370607
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The backscatter coefficient (BSC) is a fundamental property of tissues and can be used to classify tissues. Two BSC calibration methods are the planar reflector method and the reference phantom method. In both methods, linear acoustic propagation is assumed. In this study, the calibration methods were evaluated when acoustic nonlinear distortion was present. Radio frequency data were acquired from two physical phantoms using a 5 MHz single-element transducer and low power (one excitation level) and high power (six increasing excitation levels) excitation signals. BSCs estimated from the high power settings were compared to the BSCs estimated using the low power by calculating the root mean square error (RMSE). The BSCs were parameterized by fitting the BSC curve to a power law and estimating the power law exponent and by estimating the effective scatterer diameter (ESD). When using the planar reflector method, estimates of the exponent were observed to monotonically increase in value versus increasing excitation level and the ESD decreased with increasing excitation level. The RMSE increased monotonically versus excitation level using the planar reflector method but did not increase using the reference phantom method. The results suggest that the effects of nonlinear distortion are minimized using the reference phantom method.

Citing Articles

Spectral-based Quantitative Ultrasound Imaging Processing Techniques: Comparisons of RF Versus IQ Approaches.

Liu M, Kou Z, Zhao Y, Wiskin J, Czarnota G, Oelze M Ultrason Imaging. 2024; 46(2):75-89.

PMID: 38318705 PMC: 10962227. DOI: 10.1177/01617346231226224.


Quantitative Ultrasound: Experimental Implementation.

Oelze M Adv Exp Med Biol. 2023; 1403:29-42.

PMID: 37495913 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-21987-0_3.


Non-invasive evaluation of liver steatosis with imaging modalities: New techniques and applications.

Zeng K, Bao W, Wang Y, Liao M, Yang J, Huang J World J Gastroenterol. 2023; 29(17):2534-2550.

PMID: 37213404 PMC: 10198053. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i17.2534.


Ultrasonic backscatter coefficient estimation in nonlinear regime using an in situ calibration target.

Coila A, Oelze M J Acoust Soc Am. 2022; 151(6):4196.

PMID: 35778186 PMC: 9239729. DOI: 10.1121/10.0011743.


Effects of acoustic nonlinearity on pulse-echo attenuation coefficient estimation from tissue-mimicking phantoms.

Coila A, Oelze M J Acoust Soc Am. 2020; 148(2):805.

PMID: 32873024 PMC: 7434466. DOI: 10.1121/10.0001690.


References
1.
Dong F, Madsen E, MacDonald M, Zagzebski J . Nonlinearity parameter for tissue-mimicking materials. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1999; 25(5):831-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-5629(99)00016-2. View

2.
Wear K, Stiles T, Frank G, Madsen E, Cheng F, Feleppa E . Interlaboratory comparison of ultrasonic backscatter coefficient measurements from 2 to 9 MHz. J Ultrasound Med. 2005; 24(9):1235-50. DOI: 10.7863/jum.2005.24.9.1235. View

3.
Chen X, Phillips D, Schwarz K, Mottley J, Parker K . The measurement of backscatter coefficient from a broadband pulse-echo system: a new formulation. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 1997; 44(2):515-25. DOI: 10.1109/58.585136. View

4.
Lavarello R, Ghoshal G, Oelze M . On the estimation of backscatter coefficients using single-element focused transducers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011; 129(5):2903-11. PMC: 3114739. DOI: 10.1121/1.3557036. View

5.
Yao L, Zagzebski J, Madsen E . Backscatter coefficient measurements using a reference phantom to extract depth-dependent instrumentation factors. Ultrason Imaging. 1990; 12(1):58-70. DOI: 10.1177/016173469001200105. View