An Axially Variant Kernel Imaging Model Applied to Ultrasound Image Reconstruction

Existing ultrasound deconvolution approaches unrealistically assume, primarily for computational reasons, that the convolution model relies on a spatially invariant kernel and circulant boundary conditions. We discard both restrictions and introduce an image formation model applicable to ultrasound imaging and deconvolution based on an axially varying kernel, which accounts for arbitrary boundary conditions. Our model has the same computational complexity as the one employing spatially invariant convolution and has negligible memory requirements. To accommodate the state-of-the-art deconvolution approaches when applied to a variety of inverse problem formulations, we also provide an equally efficient adjoint expression for our model. Simulation results confirm the tractability of our model for the deconvolution of large images. Moreover, in terms of accuracy metrics, the quality of reconstruction using our model is superior to that obtained using spatially invariant convolution.

[1]  M J Ackerman,et al.  The Visible Human Project , 1998, Proc. IEEE.

[2]  J. Jensen,et al.  Calculation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers , 1992, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[3]  J. Arendt Paper presented at the 10th Nordic-Baltic Conference on Biomedical Imaging: Field: A Program for Simulating Ultrasound Systems , 1996 .

[4]  Dianne P. O'Leary,et al.  Restoring Images Degraded by Spatially Variant Blur , 1998, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[5]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[6]  H. Zou,et al.  Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net , 2005 .

[7]  J. Ng,et al.  Wavelet restoration of medical pulse-echo ultrasound images in an EM framework , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[8]  K. Balasubramaniam,et al.  Ultrasonic imaging using a computed point spread function , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[9]  James Ng,et al.  Sensitivity to point-spread function parameters in medical ultrasound image deconvolution. , 2009, Ultrasonics.

[10]  Patrick L. Combettes,et al.  Proximal Splitting Methods in Signal Processing , 2009, Fixed-Point Algorithms for Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering.

[11]  O. Basset,et al.  A restoration framework for ultrasonic tissue characterization , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[12]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Proximal Algorithms , 2013, Found. Trends Optim..

[13]  C. Dalitz,et al.  Point spread functions and deconvolution of ultrasonic images , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control.

[14]  Jean-Yves Tourneret,et al.  Joint Segmentation and Deconvolution of Ultrasound Images Using a Hierarchical Bayesian Model Based on Generalized Gaussian Priors , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[15]  Oleg V. Michailovich Non-stationary blind deconvolution of medical ultrasound scans , 2017, Medical Imaging.

[16]  Paul Hurley,et al.  On an analytical, spatially-varying, point-spread-function , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS).

[17]  Adrian Basarab,et al.  An axially-variant kernel imaging model for ultrasound image reconstruction , 2018 .

[18]  Sergiy A. Vorobyov,et al.  An Accelerated Composite Gradient Method for Large-Scale Composite Objective Problems , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[19]  Sergiy A. Vorobyov,et al.  A Generalized Accelerated Composite Gradient Method: Uniting Nesterov's Fast Gradient Method and FISTA , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.