The present invention relates to a model-based image reconstruction method suitable to be used for example in ultrasound imaging. The invention also relates to an imaging apparatus for carrying out the method.
Pulse wave imaging applications, such as ultrasound (US) imaging applications, may be used in various technical fields. In medical applications, it is used to see internal body structures such as tendons, muscles, joints, vessels and internal organs. However, pulse wave imaging techniques are also widely used outside the medical field. One commercial use of ultrasound is non-destructive testing (NDT), which is a process of inspecting, testing, or evaluating materials, components or assemblies for discontinuities, or differences in characteristics without destroying the serviceability of the part or system. In other words, when the inspection or test is completed, the part can still be used. An example of an NDT would be in oil pipes. In this case, ultrasound waves are used to propagate down the pipe, and in this manner, it is possible to detect if there is a crack or defect as a reflection of the pulse. With knowledge of the speed of the wave in the pipe and the time interval between the reflection from the crack and sending the waves, the position of the defect can be estimated. The same theory used for crack detection in pipes can be used to detect cracks in aircraft structures/wing panels etc and to detect the build-up of ice on the surface of the wing for example. There are of course many other possible NDT applications for the pulse wave imaging. Pulse wave imaging has gained popularity, because of its safety, portability and real-time capability.
Classical US imaging uses multiple focused time-separated transmit beams to reconstruct images along scan lines. The frame rate is therefore limited by the number of focused transmit beams and cannot exceed a few tens of images per second. Although this frame rate is sufficient for many applications, the understanding of more complex phenomena, such as the propagation of shear waves for elastography, requires higher frame rates.
One way to overcome this limitation consists in decreasing as much as possible the number of transmit beams. Synthetic aperture (SA) methods try to overcome this problem by using only few transducer elements to sequentially insonify the whole medium. Another option is ultrafast US (UFUS) imaging, which exploits the idea of using plane waves (PW) or diverging waves (DW) to insonify the whole field-of-view at once, allowing US systems to reach thousands of frames per second.
An important limitation of such approaches is a degraded image quality. Indeed, compared to focused transmit beams where the energy is concentrated in a specific region of interest, the energy of a PW or a DW is spread over the insonified medium, resulting in lower signal-to-noise ratio and poor spatial resolution. One way to address this problem consists in averaging multiple images, obtained with different insonification angles in the context of PW imaging and with different point source locations in the context of DW imaging for UFUS or with different groups of transducer elements for SA imaging. In UFUS, this process is called coherent compounding. While the implementation of such a technique is rather simple, it requires multiple insonifications thus reducing the frame rate.
An alternative to averaging multiple insonifications consists in using more efficient reconstruction methods than classical techniques, which revolve mainly around delay-and-sum (DAS) beamforming. One popular group of methods relies on the use of iterative algorithms to solve the ill-posed image formation problem induced by US image reconstruction. These methods are built upon forward models of the problem. The main problem with the known solutions resides in their computational complexity, usually translated into storage requirements of the corresponding matrix representation. Some models proposed require the storage of several hundreds of giga bytes for matrix coefficients in two dimensions (2D). This issue severely limits the appeal of the iterative methods in view of the classical approaches.
It is an object of the present invention to overcome at least some of the problems identified above related to image reconstruction in pulse wave imaging.
According to a first aspect of the invention, there is provided an image reconstruction method as recited in claim 1.
The proposed method has the advantage that the reconstructed image has a very high quality and that it can be reconstructed quickly. In other words, compared to prior art solutions, image contrast and resolution can be significantly improved.
According to a second aspect of the invention, there is provided an imaging apparatus configured to carry out the method according to the first aspect of the invention as recited in claim 15.
Other aspects of the invention are recited in the dependent claims attached hereto.
Other features and advantages of the invention will become apparent from the following description of a non-limiting exemplary embodiment, with reference to the appended drawings, in which:
An embodiment of the present invention will now be described in detail with reference to the attached figures. This embodiment is described in the context of US imaging, but the teachings of the invention are not limited to this environment. The teachings of the invention are equally applicable in other fields where pulse wave imaging can be used. Identical or corresponding functional and structural elements which appear in the different drawings are assigned the same reference numerals.
The present invention in the present embodiment proposes an image formation method and apparatus or system in the context of 2D and 3D ultrasound imaging based on solving an ill-posed linear inverse problem of the following form:
m=Hγ+n,
where m are the measurements, γ is the object under scrutiny or more specifically its reflectivity function, H is the measurement model and n is the noise. The proposed image formation method relies on two main pillars: a fast and matrix-free measurement model H and an image reconstruction method which permits to retrieve an estimate of the object under scrutiny γ given the measurements m. The object may be an internal part or element of a larger structure. The proposed method can be carried out by a standard US system comprising a US probe, an image formation module and a post-processing and display modules, as described in
The US probe 3 is connected to an image formation module or apparatus 5, which is configured to carry out the image formation. A measurement model estimated in a measurement model unit 7 is used in the image formation process. The proposed measurement model as explained later in detail is based on a pulse-echo spatial impulse response model. The present invention introduces matrix-free formulations of the measurement model and its adjoint, the adjoint of an operator being defined as a continuous extension of the transpose of a square matrix in the case of a continuous operator, which represent a novel image formation method in pulse wave imaging. The description of the measurement model may be achieved through two main steps:
The model may be derived for example for a PW, DW and SA imaging. It is compatible with radio frequency and in-phase and quadrature (IQ) data. Finally, a matrix-free formulation of the adjoint of the proposed measurement model is derived. It will be demonstrated that it can also be recast as an integral over hypersurfaces, defined as 1D manifolds in the case of 2D imaging and as 2D manifolds in the case of 3D imaging, that are parametrised and that the same discretisation scheme as proposed for the measurement model may be used.
The image formation apparatus 5 also comprises an image reconstruction unit 9 for running an image reconstruction process or method. The image reconstruction method aims to retrieve an estimate {circumflex over (γ)} of the image under scrutiny. The estimate can be written as:
{circumflex over (γ)}=f(m,H,Ξ),
where f accounts for the image reconstruction process with hyperparameters Ξ. Two different image reconstruction methods are presented in the present description:
Iterative approaches where f(m, H, Ξ) is an iterative algorithm, which solves the following problem:
After image reconstruction, the reconstructed data are sent to a post-processing and display unit or module 11. The post-processing step covers a range of applications, such as B-mode imaging, colour Doppler imaging, vector Doppler imaging and elastography.
For B-mode imaging using RF data, an envelope detection is applied onto the reconstructed data. The envelope detection can, for instance, be achieved by means of the Hilbert transform followed by a magnitude detection and optional low-pass filtering. It can also be achieved by squaring and low-pass filtering the signal. If B-mode imaging is used with IQ data, the magnitude of the signal is extracted. The envelope detection step is followed by a normalisation and dynamics compression steps. For Doppler imaging and elastography, the reconstructed RF or IQ data are directly used without post-processing.
Before explaining the proposed method in detail, some notations used in the present description are explained first. In the pulse-echo configuration considered in the present description, echoes from a medium Ω∈3, characterised by its reflectivity (function) γ(r) with r=[x, y, z]T∈Ω are detected by sensors 13.
Mathematical or Similar Notations:
denotes the -norm of a vector v∈
N, where
denotes the space of real numbers.
Ultrasound Related Notations:
Measurement Grid Related Notations:
Reflectivity Grid Related Notations:
The proposed method defines a first grid and a second grid which both lie in the 3D space. The first grid is referred to as a reflectivity grid, which comprises reflectivity grid points at intersections of two crossing grid lines, which in this example form an angle of substantially 90 degrees with respect to each other. Every reflectivity grid point of the reflectivity grid belongs to the medium Ω. The second grid is referred to as a measurement grid, which comprises measurement grid points at intersections of two crossing grid lines, which in this example form an angle of substantially 90 degrees with respect to each other. The measurement grid points coincide with the locations of the receiving sensors, in one dimension, and with the sampling time instants of each sensor in the other dimension.
Estimation, evaluation, computation or implementation of the measurement model at a given measurement grid point according to the present invention is explained next. In this example, the measurement model is estimated at each measurement grid point. The measurement model used in this disclosure is a pulse-echo spatial impulse response model first introduced by G. E. Tupholme, “Generation of acoustic pulses by baffled plane pistons”, Mathematika, vol. 16, p. 209, 1969, and P. R. Stepanishen, “The Time-Dependent Force and Radiation Impedance on a Piston in a Rigid Infinite Planar Baffle”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 49, p. 76, 1971. According to this model, one can write the below equations which account for the raw data sample recorded at position p and time t.
A continuous parametric formulation of the measurement model for a configuration of one transmitting point source element and one receiving point source sensor is explained next.
The measurement model is defined as:
The above equation can be expressed as shown below, and defines the measurement model as an integral along the hypersurface Γ(p, q, t):
In the above equations, the hypersurface, or more specifically a reflectivity hypersurface, is Γ(p, q, t), defined by the equation g(r, p, q, t)=0, where the variable of interest is r. Γ(p, q, t) defines a conic when r lies in the 2D plane (parabola or ellipse) and a quadric when r lies in a 3D volume. The same shapes apply also to the measurement hypersurface.
The reflectivity hypersurface Γ(p, q, t) can now be parametrised in order to reduce the integration dimension. The reflectivity hypersurface Γ(p, q, t), defined by the equation g(r, p, q, t)=0, can equivalently be defined by a set of reflectivity parametric equations. In mathematics, parametric equations define a set of quantities as functions of one or more independent variables (ie parameters). Parametric equations are commonly used to express the coordinates of the points that make up a geometric object such as a surface or curve, in which case the equations are collectively called a parametric representation or parameterisation of the object. The set of reflectivity parametric equations can now be defined as follows:
r∈Γ(p,q,t)⇔r=r(α,p,q,t).
The equation on the right of the equivalence defines the reflectivity parametric equations of r since r now depends on a parameter α∈A, where A⊂ if r∈
3 and A⊂
when r∈
2. It is to be noted if there is one set of reflectivity parametric equations per measurement value or sample. Furthermore, the hypersurface can be obtained by drawing the set of reflectivity parametric equations. Equipped with the above formulation of the set of reflectivity parametric equations, it is possible to derive the continuous parametric formulation of the measurement model H as follows:
A continuous measurement model for a configuration of one transmitting finite length element of arbitrary shape and one receiving point source sensor is explained next. In this case, the transmitting element has a finite length and an arbitrary shape. It is characterised by a continuous set of point source locations Xj. The measurement model is defined as
m(p,t)=∫∫q∈X
It can be seen that the main difference with the model described in connection with the configuration of one transmitting point source element and one receiving point source sensor lies in the fact that there is one more integral, which corresponds to the sum of the contributions of all the point sources which form the finite length sensor of arbitrary shape.
The corresponding parametric formulation is given by:
m(p,t)=od(r(α,p,q,τ),p,q)γ(r(α,p,q,τ))|J(α,p,q,τ)|vpe(t−τ)dαdσ(q)dτ.
A continuous measurement model for a configuration of one transmitting finite length element of arbitrary shape and one receiving finite length sensor is explained next. In this case, the receiving sensor has a finite length and arbitrary shape. It is defined by the set of point source locations Πi. The coordinate of the resulting signal is denoted by m(ξi, t), where ξi∈Πi. It can be for example the coordinate of the point in the centre of Πi.
It can be written: m(ξi, t)=∫p∈Π
m(ξi,t)=∫∫∫p∈Π
The corresponding parametric formulation is given by:
m(ξi,t)=od(r(α,p,q,τ),p,q)γ(r(α,p,q,τ))|J(α,p,q,τ)|vpe(t−τ)dαdσ(q)dσ(p)dτ.
A continuous measurement model for a configuration of multiple transmitting finite length elements of arbitrary shape and one receiving finite length sensor of arbitrary shape is explained next. In this case, a set of point source locations Xj is associated with the transmitting element j, leading to the following equation:
m(ξi,t)=Σj=1N
This equation is highly similar to the one described in connection with the configuration of one transmitting finite length elements of arbitrary shape and one receiving finite length sensor of arbitrary shape. The only difference is in the sum that has been introduced to take into account the multiple transmitting elements.
The corresponding parametric formulation is given by:
m(ξi,t)=Σj=1Nod(r(α,p,q,τ),p,q)γ(r(α,p,q,τ))|J(α,p,q,τ)|vpe(t−τ)dαdσ(q)dσ(p)dτ.
A continuous measurement model for a configuration of multiple transmitting finite length elements of arbitrary shape and multiple receiving finite length sensors of arbitrary shape is explained next.
When a set of multiple receiving sensors is used, a set of point source locations Πi and a coordinate ξi is associated with the receiving sensor i. Thus, the receiving measurement field can be defined as
m(ξ,t)=Σi=1N
which is only defined for discrete coordinates ξi. In the remainder of the present description, the following holds: ξ∈P⊂3.
The continuous parametric formulation of the measurement model is next discretised. This step consists in discretising the parametric formulation of the measurement model described in connection with the configuration of multiple transmitting finite length elements of arbitrary shape and one receiving finite length sensor of arbitrary shape. However, any of the models described above could be discretised instead. By discretisation, it is meant that we select some discrete values αp of the parameter α, which defines the following set of parameters: Ad={αp∈A, p={1 . . . Nα}}. It can be seen that the selection of the discrete values of the parameter α leads to a discretisation of the hypersurface Γ(p, q, t), which will now be described by only Nα points (r(αp, p, q, t))α
m(ξi,tl)=({tilde over (m)}(ξi)*vpe)(tl),
where vpe∈N
where w(qk), u(αp) and z(pn) are integration weights (related to the discretisation of the continuous integrals). It can be noticed that, for each point qk of the transmitting element, the above equation comprises a set of reflectivity values (γ(r(αp, pn, qktl)))α
The hypersurface reflectivity values are next interpolated to substantially coincide with the reflectivity grid points. The hypersurface reflectivity values are usually unknown since they do not lie on the reflectivity grid points. Thus, they need to be approximated from the reflectivity samples defined on the reflectivity grid by means of an interpolation kernel as introduced by P. Thévenaz, T. Blu and M. Unser, “Interpolation revisited”, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 19, p. 739-758, 2000. Let us thus introduce the interpolation kernel φ:Ω→ such that:
γ(r(αp,pn,qk,tl))≈Σs=1N
The above interpolation equation relates the hypersurface reflectivity values γ(r(αp, pn, qk, tl)) (which are typically not on the reflectivity grid points) to the reflectivity samples γs.
A summation of the discretised and interpolated hypersurface reflectivity samples or values is carried out next. The interpolation equation is inserted into the discretised measurement model and the following summation is performed:
{tilde over (m)}(ξitl)=Σj=1N
In this example, the output of the summation is eventually convolved with the pulse shape, as described in the previous equations in order to obtain an estimate of the measurement value, also referred to as a measurement value estimate, at the considered measurement grid point. The above described process is carried out for every measurement value. Thus, the outcome of the estimation or processing of the measurement model is the estimate of the measurement value at the respective measurement grid point.
The estimation, evaluation, computation or implementation of the adjoint operator of the measurement model at each reflectivity grid point is carried out next. First, a continuous parametric formulation of the adjoint operator of the measurement model is obtained. The continuous formulation of the adjoint operator can be derived from the measurement model, ie from example from any of the continuous measurement models given above, using functional analysis tools. The equations below are derived from the case of multiple finite length transmitting elements of arbitrary shape and multiple finite length receiving sensors of arbitrary shape. Indeed, if we define an operator : L2(Ω)→L2(P×T) such that
{γ}(ξ, t)=Σi=1N
: L2(P×T)→L2(Ω) of
is defined as:
n|
{γ}
P×T=
{n}|γ
Ω,∀n∈L2(P×T),∀γ∈L2(Ω).
Let us consider the following inner product:
where u(t)=vpe(−t) is the matched filter of the pulse echo waveform. We now have:n|
{γ}
P×T=∫r∈Ωγ(r)
{n}(r)dr=
{n}|γ
Ω,
where{n}(r)=Σj=1N
Equipped with the adjoint operator of the measurement model, we define the estimate of the reflectivity value at the reflectivity grid point r, given an estimate of the measurement value, as:
This case is simpler than the measurement model. Indeed, the parametric formulation is direct and the measurement parametric equation can be expressed as a simple time-of-flight equation:
t=tTx(r,q)+tRx(r,p).
The measurement hypersurface corresponding to the above equation is then:
The parametric formulation of the adjoint operator of the measurement model is next discretised. The same process is applied as for the discretisation of the measurement model. In this case, the discretisation process is more direct since it is directly applied onto p. The discretised set of parameters is Πdi. We thus have the following equation:
{circumflex over (γ)}(r)=Σj=1N
where w(qk) and z(pn) are integration weights, m(ξi)=(m(ξi, tl))tN
An interpolation of the hypersurface measurement samples to substantially coincide with the measurement grid points is carried out next. The values of the hypersurface measurement samples are usually unknown since they do not lie on the measurement grid points. Thus, they need to be approximated from the measurement samples defined on the measurement grid by means of an interpolation kernel. Let us introduce the interpolation kernel ψ: →
such that:
(m(ξi)*u)(tTx(r,qk)+tRx(r,pn))≈Σl=1N
The above equation relates the hypersurface measurement samples (m(ξi)*u)(tTx(r, qk)+tRx(r, pn)) to the convolved measurement samples (m(ξi)*u)(tl).
After this, the discretised and interpolated hypersurface measurement samples are summed. The interpolation equation is inserted into the discretised adjoint operator of the measurement model and the following summation is performed:
{circumflex over (γ)}(r)=Σj=1N
The output of the summation is the estimate of the reflectivity value at the considered reflectivity grid point.
The image reconstruction procedure is explained next. The inverse problem is defined first. The measurement values m can be used to generate an estimate of the reflectivity values {circumflex over (γ)} using the adjoint operator of the measurement model as described above. Similarly, an estimate of the reflectivity values {circumflex over (γ)} can be used to generate an estimate of the measurement values {circumflex over (m)}, which are not equal to m, using the measurement model described earlier. Thus, we now know the relationships between the estimates of the measurement and reflectivity values.
The image reconstruction method aims to retrieve an estimate {circumflex over (γ)} of the reflectivity values evaluated at the reflectivity grid points, given the set of measurements values m. The relationship between the measurement values and the unknown reflectivity values is defined by the following linear inverse problem:
which corresponds to the measurement model estimated at each point of the measurement grid.
Moreover, since the operator {γ}(pn, tl) is linear with respect to γ (can be deduced from the formulae described when evaluating the measurement model at a given grid point), there exists a matrix H∈
N
) such that
m=Hγ,
which defines the inverse problem.
The optimisation problem associated with the inverse problem is explained next. In order to solve the above inverse problem, it is expressed as the following optimisation problem:
where (γ, m) denotes the objective function involved in the optimisation problem,
(Hγ, m) is a lower semicontinuous functional accounting for the data discrepancy term, measuring the distance between the estimate of the measurement values Hγ and the measurement values m,
(γ) is a lower semicontinuous functional describing an optional prior term, which accounts for additional information such as a specific statistical behaviour, on the reflectivity values and λ>0 is a regularisation parameter.
Some examples of the functionals used for the data discrepancy term are listed below:
Some examples of the functionals used for the prior term are listed below:
It is next explained how the optimisation problem can be solved with one image prior. Depending on the properties of and
R, different types of algorithms may be used.
A case where and
are differentiable is explained next. In this case, the inverse problem is solved by finding the roots of the derivative of the objective function
(γ, m) with respect to γ, which can be written as
It can be seen that the problem involves the computation of H in the calculation of the derivative of (Hγ, m). Depending on the function
(Hγ, m), the calculation of the derivative may also involve the computation of the adjoint operator of the measurement model H. One famous example of such a problem is the Tikhonov regularisation, where
(γ)=∥γ∥22 and
(Hγ, m)=∥Hγ−m∥22. In this case, we have the following solution: {circumflex over (γ)}=(I+H†H)−1H†m, where I∈
N
A case where only is differentiable and
is convex is explained next. One popular group of methods used to solve such problems are called projected gradient methods. Projected gradient methods exploit the fact that the solution of the optimisation problem satisfies a fixed-point equation. One popular algorithm is forward-backward splitting which involves the following system of fixed-point equations, limited to one equation in this specific example:
where
denotes the proximity operators associated with , the proximity operator being introduced by P. Combettes and J.-C. Pesquet, “Proximal Splitting Methods in Signal Processing”, Fixed-Point Algorithms for Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, p. 185-212, 2011. The above equation is denoted as a fixed-point equation since {circumflex over (γ)} appears on both sides of the equation. Thus, the problem is solved by carrying out the following iterations:
until a convergence criterion is reached.
Another popular algorithm is the fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (FISTA), introduced by A. Beck and M. Teboulle, “A Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm for Linear Inverse Problems”, SIAM Journal on Imaging Science, vol. 2, p. 183-202, 2009, which is a variant of the method described above.
One example of the forward-backward splitting is when (γ)=∥γ∥1 and
(Hγ, m)=∥Hγ−m∥22. In this case, the following iteration is performed:
=soft(
−2τnH†(H
−m),τn),
where τn∈ is a hyper-parameter.
Indeed, the proximity operator associated with the -norm is defined as proxτ∥·∥
A case where and
are not differentiable is explained next. In this case, several methods can be used, such as alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) introduced by S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato and J. Eckstein, “Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers”, Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 3, p. 1-122, 2011, or primal-dual forward-backward (PDFB) algorithm introduced by P. Combettes, L. Condat, J.-C. Pesquet and BC Vu, “A forward-backward view of some primal-dual optimization methods in image recovery”, Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, p. 4141-4145, 2014.
It is next explained how the optimisation problem with M image priors can be solved. In this case it can be considered that the prior term can be written as:(γ)=Σk=1M
k(γ).
In this case, several algorithms can be used such as: primal-dual forward-backward, parallel proximal algorithm (PPXA) introduced by N. Pustelnik, C. Chaux and J.-C. Pesquet, “Parallel Proximal Algorithm for Image Restoration Using Hybrid Regularization”, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 20, p. 2450-2462, 2011, or simultaneous direction method of multipliers (SDMM) introduced by S. Setzer, G. Steidl and T. Teuber, “Deblurring Poissonian Images by Split Bregman Techniques”, Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, vol. 21, p. 193-199, 2010. The common properties of these algorithms are that they require the computation of the proximity operator of (Hγ, m) (or the derivative of
(Hγ, m)) and of the M image prior terms. The computation of the derivative or the proximity operator of
(Hγ, m) may involve the estimation of the measurement model and the adjoint operator of the measurement depending on the function
(Hγ, m).
The above described image reconstruction method can be summarised by the flow charts of
The flow chart of is differentiable. The first four steps, ie steps 31, 33, 35 and 37 are the same as the first four steps in the flow chart of
=H†m is computed by estimating the adjoint operator of the measurement model on the measurement values m as an initialisation. In step 41, the variable vn=
is computed or estimated according to the flow chart of
is computed. In certain implementation examples, in step 45, the adjoint operator is used to compute the derivative of the data discrepancy term. For instance, when (Hγ, m)=∥Hγ−m∥22, the derivative of
(Hγ, m) is expressed as:
which involves the computation of the adjoint operator of the measurement model. In step 47, the proximity operators of the image prior terms are computed. In step 49, is updated. In step 50, it is determined whether or not a convergence criterion is fulfilled. In the affirmative, the process comes to an end. If the criterion is not fulfilled, then the process continues in step 41.
The flow chart of is computed for each measurement grid point according to the flow chart of
−τnH†rn is computed. In step 69, the projection on the image prior term
=
(
−τnH†rn) is computed. In step 70, it is determined whether or not a convergence criterion is fulfilled. In the affirmative, the process comes to an end. If the criterion is not fulfilled, then the process continues in step 61.
The flow chart of
The flow chart of
The transmitted pulse waves can be generated by at least one electromechanical transduction device excited by an electrical signal. The measurement values can be obtained from an electrical signal generated by at least one reciprocal electromechanical transduction device. The electromechanical transduction devices are spatially arranged into: one or more linear array probes with a multi-element structure with a substantially one-wavelength-pitch, and aligned along a straight, convex or concave line; one or more phased array probes with a multi-element structure with a substantially half-wavelength-pitch, and aligned along a straight, convex or concave line; one or more matrix array probes with a multi-element structure with a substantially one-wavelength-pitch, and aligned on a planar surface; or one or more matrix array probes with a multi-element structure with a substantially half-wavelength-pitch, and aligned on a planar surface.
While the invention has been illustrated and described in detail in the drawings and foregoing description, such illustration and description are to be considered illustrative or exemplary and not restrictive, the invention being not limited to the disclosed embodiment. Other embodiments and variants are understood, and can be achieved by those skilled in the art when carrying out the claimed invention, based on a study of the drawings, the disclosure and the appended claims.
For example, the teachings of the present invention can be applied to photoacoustic imaging, where the transmit acoustic waves are replaced with electromagnetic-radiation pulses. In this particular case, the whole formalism introduced in the present description can be simplified by setting all acoustic transmission propagation delays to zero, because electromagnetic radiation propagates at a speed close to the speed of light, ie typically five orders of magnitude faster than the speed of sound. For this reason, the transmission propagation delays can thus be neglected when accounting the acoustic propagation delays on reception. Another modification considered in the present invention is in the use of transducer technologies different from piezoelectric materials, such as capacitive machined ultrasound transducers (CMUTs). Yet another modification is to apply the invention in a time-multiplexed scheme, whereby subsets of transmitting and/or receiving transducer elements are successively addressed in sequence, and the resulting signals are stored for subsequent recombination. All the above applications can also be translated to microbubble based contrast specific nonlinear imaging techniques known in the art, such as pulse inversion, amplitude modulation, amplitude modulation pulse inversion, harmonic imaging etc.
The present invention also proposes a computer program product comprising instructions stored on a non-transitory medium for implementing the steps of the method as explained above when loaded and run on computing means of an electronic data processing device, such as the imaging apparatus 1.
In the claims, the word “comprising” does not exclude other elements or steps, and the indefinite article “a” or “an” does not exclude a plurality. The mere fact that different features are recited in mutually different dependent claims does not indicate that a combination of these features cannot be advantageously used.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
17187412 | Aug 2017 | EP | regional |
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/EP2018/072579 | 8/21/2018 | WO | 00 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2019/038296 | 2/28/2019 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
20080100614 | Augst | May 2008 | A1 |
20090076387 | Simopoulos | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090182234 | Perrey | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20190343487 | Perrey | Nov 2019 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
102324106 | Jan 2012 | CN |
103971404 | Aug 2014 | CN |
104408772 | Mar 2015 | CN |
105069789 | Nov 2015 | CN |
2005-342140 | Dec 2005 | JP |
2017-104476 | Jun 2017 | JP |
Entry |
---|
Beck A. et al., “A Fast Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm for Linear Inverse Problems”, SIAM Journal on Imaging Science, vol. 2, p. 183-202, 2009. |
S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato and J. Eckstein, “Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers”, Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 3, p. 1-122, 2011. |
P. Combettes and J.-C. Pesquet, “Proximal Splitting Methods in Signal Processing”, Fixed-Point Algorithms for Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, p. 185-212, 2011. |
J. Combettes, L. Condat, J.-C. Pesquet and BC Vu, “A forward-backward view of some primal-dual optimization methods in image recovery”, Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, p. 4141-4145, 2014. |
N. Pustelnik, C. Chaux and J.-C. Pesquet, “Parallel Proximal Algorithm for Image Restoration Using Hybrid Regularization”, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 20, p. 2450-2462, 2011. |
S. Setzer, G. Steidl and T. Teuber, “Deblurring Poissonian Images by Split Bregman Techniques”, Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, vol. 21, p. 193-199, 2010. |
P. R. Stepanishen, “The Time-Dependent Force and Radiation Impedance on a Piston in a Rigid Infinite Planar Baffle”, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 49, p. 76, 1971. |
P. Thévenaz, T. Blu and M. Unser, “Interpolation revisited”, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 19, p. 739-758, 2000. |
G. E. Tupholme, “Generation of acoustic pulses by baffled plane pistons”, Mathematika, vol. 16, p. 209, 1969. |
David Guillaume et al: “Time domain compressive beam forming of ultrasound signals”, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, American Institute of Physics for the Acoustical Society of America, New York, NY, US, vol. 137, No. 5, May 1, 2015. |
Amit Adam et al: “Bayesian Time-of-Flight for Realtime Shape, Illumination and Albedo”, Jul. 22, 2015. |
Guillaume David et al., “Time domain compressive beam forming of ultrasound signals”, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, May 2015, vol. 137, No. 5 and pp. 2773-2784. |
Ece Ozkan et al., “Inverse Problem of Ultrasound and Beamforming With Sparsity Constraints and Regularization” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectronics and Frequency Control, Mar. 2018, vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 356-365. |
Solivan A. Valente et al., “An Assessment of Iterative Reconstruction Methods for Sparse Ultrasound Imaging”, Sensors, Mar. 8, 2017, vol. 17, No. 533, pp. 1-133. |
JP Office Action in Application No. 2020-511196 dated May 18, 2021. |
CN Office Action in Application No. 201880066558.6 dated Jun. 2, 2021. |
Admit Adam et al., “Bayesian Time-of-Flight for Realtime Shape, Illumination and Albedo”, IEEE Transactions on May 31, 2017, Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 39, 5. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200225335 A1 | Jul 2020 | US |