Generalized cystic resolution: a metric for assessing the fundamental limits on beamformer performance

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.

[1]  Frederick Kelcz,et al.  Association of automated and human observer lesion detecting ability using phantoms. , 2005, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[2]  J. Woods,et al.  Probability and Random Processes with Applications to Signal Processing , 2001 .

[3]  Antonio Cantoni,et al.  A new approach to the design of broad-band element space antenna array processors , 1985 .

[4]  S. W. Smith,et al.  A contrast-detail analysis of diagnostic ultrasound imaging. , 1982, Medical physics.

[5]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Statistics of Speckle in Ultrasound B-Scans , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Sonics and Ultrasonics.

[6]  W.F. Walker,et al.  Optimal apodization design for medical ultrasound using constrained least squares part I: theory , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[7]  W.F. Walker,et al.  A spline-based approach for computing spatial impulse responses , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[8]  Jørgen Arendt Jensen,et al.  Spatial filters for focusing ultrasound images , 2001, 2001 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium. Proceedings. An International Symposium (Cat. No.01CH37263).

[9]  Jie Liu,et al.  SNR Comparisons of Beamforming Strategies , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[10]  Boaz Porat,et al.  A course in digital signal processing , 1996 .

[11]  William F. Walker,et al.  Receive channel FIR filters for enhanced contrast in medical ultrasound , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[12]  K. Ranganathan,et al.  Cystic resolution: A performance metric for ultrasound imaging systems , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[13]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Statistical properties of radio-frequency and envelope-detected signals with applications to medical ultrasound. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[14]  R. Johnson,et al.  Contrast response analysis for medical ultrasound imaging , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[15]  Jie Liu,et al.  Observer efficiency in discrimination tasks Simulating Malignant and benign breast lesions imaged with ultrasound , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[16]  David Vilkomerson,et al.  Towards a resolution metric for medical ultrasonic imaging , 1995, 1995 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium. Proceedings. An International Symposium.

[17]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Detection performance theory for ultrasound imaging systems , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  W.F. Walker,et al.  Optimal apodization design for medical ultrasound using constrained least squares part II simulation results , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[19]  Jie Liu,et al.  Efficient array beam forming by spatial filtering for ultrasound B-mode imaging. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Antonio Cantoni,et al.  Derivative constrained optimum broad-band antenna arrays , 1993, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..