Literature DB >> 22518955

Ultrasound attenuation measurements using a reference phantom with sound speed mismatch.

Kibo Nam1, Ivan M Rosado-Mendez, Nicholas C Rubert, Ernest L Madsen, James A Zagzebski, Timothy J Hall.   

Abstract

Ultrasonic attenuation may be measured accurately with clinical systems and array transducers by using reference phantom methods (RPM) to account for diffraction and other system dependencies on echo signals. Assumptions with the RPM are that the speeds of sound in the sample (c(sam)) and in the reference medium (c(ref)) are the same and that they match the speed assumed in the system beamformer (c(bf)). This work assesses the accuracy of attenuation measurements by the RPM when these assumptions are not met. Attenuation was measured for two homogeneous phantoms, one with a speed of sound of 1500 m/s and the other with a sound speed of 1580 m/s. Both have an attenuation coefficient approximately equal to that of the reference, in which the speed of sound is 1540 m/s. Echo signals from the samples and the reference were acquired from a Siemens S2000 scanner with a 9L4 linear array transducer. Separate acquisitions were obtained with c(bf) at its default value of 1540 m/s and when it was set at values matching the speeds of sound of the phantoms. Simulations were also performed using conditions matching those of the experiment. RPM-measured attenuation coefficients exhibited spatially-dependent biases when c(sam) differed from c(df) and c(ref). Mean errors of 19% were seen for simulated data, with the maximum errors in attenuation measurements occurring for regions of interest near the transmit focus. Biases were minimized (mean error with simulated data was 5.6%) using c(bf) that matched c(sam) and assuring that power spectra used for attenuation computations in the sample are from precisely the same depth as those from the reference. Setting the transmit focus well beyond the depth range used to compute attenuation values minimized the bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22518955      PMCID: PMC3384730          DOI: 10.1177/016173461103300404

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrason Imaging        ISSN: 0161-7346            Impact factor:   1.578


  19 in total

1.  A new method for attenuation coefficient measurement in the liver: comparison with the spectral shift central frequency method.

Authors:  Yasutomo Fujii; Nobuyuki Taniguchi; Kouichi Itoh; Kouichiro Shigeta; Yi Wang; Jing-Wen Tsao; Kenji Kumasaki; Takashi Itoh
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.153

2.  Simulation study of effects of speed of sound and attenuation on ultrasound lateral resolution.

Authors:  Quan Chen; James A Zagzebski
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.998

3.  Ultrasonic computed tomography reconstruction of the attenuation coefficient using a linear array.

Authors:  Sheng-Wen Huang; Pai-Chi Li
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.725

4.  Sound speed correction in ultrasound imaging.

Authors:  David Napolitano; Ching-Hua Chou; Glen McLaughlin; Ting-Lan Ji; Larry Mo; Derek DeBusschere; Robert Steins
Journal:  Ultrasonics       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 2.890

5.  Dependence of ultrasonic attenuation on bone mass and microstructure in bovine cortical bone.

Authors:  Magali Sasso; Guillaume Haïat; Yu Yamato; Salah Naili; Mami Matsukawa
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2007-10-29       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Estimate of the attenuation coefficient using a clinical array transducer for the detection of cervical ripening in human pregnancy.

Authors:  Yassin Labyed; Timothy A Bigelow; Barbara L McFarlin
Journal:  Ultrasonics       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 2.890

7.  Differentiation of breast tumors by ultrasonic tissue characterization.

Authors:  R M Golub; R E Parsons; B Sigel; E J Feleppa; J Justin; H A Zaren; M Rorke; J Sokil-Melgar; H Kimitsuki
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 2.153

8.  Quantitative ultrasound imaging: in vivo results in normal liver.

Authors:  J A Zagzebski; Z F Lu; L X Yao
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 1.578

9.  In vivo measurements of frequency-dependent attenuation in tumors of the liver.

Authors:  B W Dong; M Wang; K Xie; M H Chen
Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 0.910

10.  Characterization of trabecular bone using the backscattered spectral centroid shift.

Authors:  Keith A Wear
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.267

View more
  14 in total

1.  Low Variance Estimation of Backscatter Quantitative Ultrasound Parameters Using Dynamic Programming.

Authors:  Zara Vajihi; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Timothy J Hall; Hassan Rivaz
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 2.725

2.  Cross-imaging system comparison of backscatter coefficient estimates from a tissue-mimicking material.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Viksit Kumar; Ernest L Madsen; Goutam Ghoshal; Alexander D Pawlicki; Michael L Oelze; Roberto J Lavarello; Timothy A Bigelow; James A Zagzebski; William D O'Brien; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Task-oriented comparison of power spectral density estimation methods for quantifying acoustic attenuation in diagnostic ultrasound using a reference phantom method.

Authors:  Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Kibo Nam; Timothy J Hall; James A Zagzebski
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.578

4.  Quantifying Backscatter Anisotropy Using the Reference Phantom Method.

Authors:  Quinton W Guerrero; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lindsey C Drehfal; Helen Feltovich; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 2.725

5.  Attenuation Coefficient Parameter Computations for Tissue Composition Assessment of Carotid Atherosclerotic Plaque in Vivo.

Authors:  Catherine N Steffel; Shahriar Salamat; Thomas D Cook; Stephanie M Wilbrand; Robert J Dempsey; Carol C Mitchell; Tomy Varghese
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Quantitative assessment of in vivo breast masses using ultrasound attenuation and backscatter.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.578

7.  Scatterer number density considerations in reference phantom-based attenuation estimation.

Authors:  Nicholas Rubert; Tomy Varghese
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  Acoustic Properties of Breast Fat.

Authors:  Haidy Gerges Nasief; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 2.153

9.  Analysis of Coherent and Diffuse Scattering Using a Reference Phantom.

Authors:  Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lindsey C Drehfal; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 2.725

10.  Challenges of conducting quantitative ultrasound with a multimodal optical imaging system.

Authors:  Michael A Pinkert; Timothy J Hall; Kevin W Eliceiri
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.