Advertisement

Spectral analysis framework for compressed sensing ultrasound signals

  • Jaeyoon Shim
  • Don Hur
  • Hyungsuk KimEmail author
Original Article—Physics & Engineering
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Compressed sensing (CS) is the theory of the recovery of signals that are sampled below the Nyquist sampling rate. We propose a spectral analysis framework for CS data that does not require full reconstruction for extracting frequency characteristics of signals by an appropriate basis matrix.

Methods

The coefficients of a basis matrix already contain the spectral information for CS data, and the proposed framework directly utilizes them without completely restoring original data. We apply three basis matrices, i.e., DCT, DFT, and DWT, for sampling and reconstructing processes, subsequently estimating the attenuation coefficients to validate the proposed method. The estimation accuracy and precision, as well as the execution time, are compared using the reference phantom method (RPM).

Results

The experiment results show the effective extraction of spectral information from CS signals by the proposed framework, and the DCT basis matrix provides the most accurate results while minimizing estimation variances. The execution time is also reduced compared with that of the traditional approach, which completely reconstructs the original data.

Conclusion

The proposed method provides accurate spectral analysis without full reconstruction. Since it effectively utilizes the data storage and reduces the processing time, it could be applied to small and portable ultrasound systems using the CS technique.

Keywords

Compressed sensing Ultrasound Attenuation coefficient Reference phantom method 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP); the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea (No. 20174010201620); the National Research Foundation of Korea through the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Science (NRF-2017R1D1A1B03034733); and research grant of Kwangwoon University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflicts of interest in connection with this paper.

Ethical statements

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Techavipoo U, Varghese T, Chen Q, et al. Temperature dependence of ultrasonic propagation speed and attenuation in excised canine liver tissue measured using transmitted and reflected pulses. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115:2859–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wear KA, Stiles TA, Frank GR, et al. Interlaboratory comparison of ultrasonic backscatter coefficient measurements from 2 to 9 MHz. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:1235–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Treece G, Prager R, Gee A. Ultrasound attenuation measurement in the presence of scatterer variation for reduction of shadowing and enhancement. IEEE Trans UFFC. 2005;52:2346–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levy Y, Agnon Y, Azhari H. Measurement of speed of sound dispersion in soft tissues using a double frequency continuous wave method. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006;32:1065–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bridal SL, Fournier C, Coron A, et al. Ultrasonic backscatter and attenuation (11–27 MHz) variation with collagen fiber distribution in ex vivo human dermis. Ultrason Imaging. 2006;28:23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fujii Y, Taniguchi N, Itoh K, et al. A new method for attenuation coefficient measurement in the liver: comparison with the spectral shift central frequency method. J Ultrasound Med. 2002;21:783–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee K. Dependences of the attenuation and the backscatter coefficients on the frequency and the porosity in bovine trabecular bone: application of the binary mixture model. J Korean Phys Soc. 2012;60:371–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wear KA. Characterization of trabecular bone using the backscattered spectral centroid shift Characterization of trabecular bone using the backscattered spectral centroid shift. IEEE Trans UFFC. 2003;50:402–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagatani Y, Mizuno K, Saeki T, et al. Numerical and experimental study on the wave attenuation in bone—FDTD simulation of ultrasound propagation in cancellous bone. Ultrasonics. 2007;48:607–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nam K, Zagzebski JA, Hall TJ. Quantitative assessment of in vivo breast masses using ultrasound attenuation and backscatter. Ultrason Imaging. 2013;35:146–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flax SW, Pelc NJ, Glover GH, et al. Spectral characterization and attenuation measurements in ultrasound. Ultrason Imaging. 1983;5:95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    He P, Greenleaf JF. Application of stochastic-analysis to ultrasonic echoes—estimation of attenuation and tissue heterogeneity from peaks of echo envelope. J Ultrasound Med. 1986;79:526–34.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jang HS, Song TK, Park SB. Ultrasound attenuation estimation in soft tissue using the entropy difference of pulsed echoes between two adjacent envelope segments. Ultrason Imaging. 1988;10:248–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knipp BS, Zagzebski JA, Wilson TA, et al. Attenuation and backscatter estimation using video signal analysis applied to B-mode images. Ultrason Imaging. 1997;19:221–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yao LX, Zagzebski JA, Madsen EL. Backscatter coefficient measurements using a reference phantom to extract depth-dependent instrumentation factors. Ultrason Imaging. 1990;12:58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fink M, Hottier F, Cardoso JF. Ultrasonic signal processing for in vivo attenuation measurement: short time Fourier analysis. Ultrason Imaging. 1983;5:117–35.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim H, Varghese T. Hybrid spectral domain method for attenuation slope estimation. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2008;34:1808–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang Q, Zeng Z. A Review on real-time 3D ultrasound imaging technology. Biomed Res Int. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6027029.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen MM, Mung J, Yen JT. Fresnel-based beamforming for low-cost portable ultrasound. IEEE Trans UFFC. 2011;58:112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schiffner MF, Jansen T, Schmitz G. Compressed sensing for fast image acquisition in pulse-echo ultrasound. Biomed Tech. 2012;57:192–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liebgott H, Basarab A, Kouame D, et al. Compressive sensing in medical ultrasound. Proc IEEE Ultrason Symp.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ULTSYM.2012.0486.
  22. 22.
    Liebgott H, Prost R, Friboulet D. Pre-beamformed RF signal reconstruction in medical ultrasound using compressive sensing. Ultrasonics. 2013;53:525–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chernyakova T, Eldar Y. Fourier-domain beamforming: The path to compressed ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans UFFC. 2014;61:1252–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lustig M, Donoho D, Pauly JM. Sparse MRI: The application of compressed sensing for rapid MR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58:1182–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Donoho D. Compressed sensing. IEEE Trans Inf Theory. 2006;52:1289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nyquist H. Certain topics in telegraph transmission theory. AIEE Trans. 1928;47:617–44.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shannon C. Communication in the Presence of Noise. Proc IRE. 1949;37:10–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Knuth DE. Postscript about NP-hard problems. ACM SIGACT News. 1974;6:15–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Candès EJ, Recht B. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization. Found Comput Math. 2009;9:717–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Candès EJ, Wakin MB. An introduction to compressive sampling. IEEE Signal Process Mag. 2008;25:21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical EngineeringKwangwoon UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations