The Impact of Loss on Ultrasound Propagation

  • Sidney Leeman
  • Andrew J. Healey
  • Eduardo T. Costa
Part of the Acoustical Imaging book series (ACIM, volume 26)


A marked feature of ultrasound propagation in most biological tissues is the frequency-dependent loss suffered by the pulse. The measurement of this parameter is generally accepted to be an important tissue parameter, but many artefacts, in particular those due to diffraction effects, compromise such an approach towards tissue characterisation. This paper considers a particular wave equation, that is valid for a linear Maxwell viscoelastic medium, which can be solved in three spatial dimensions, so that the full diffractive nature of a propagating pulse can be explored. For simplicity, axial symmetry is assumed, but such an idealisation is not a prerequisite. Some complexities associated with the measurement of loss are examined and the (exact) solution is used to underpin an artefact-free method for loss measurement. The Maxwell model solution is shown to have some implications for the measurement of speed of sound, even for linear propagation.


Maxwell Model Signal Velocity Main Pulse Ultrasound Propagation Bubbly Liquid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Commander, K.W. And Prosperetti, A., 1989, Linear pressure waves in bubbly liquids: comparison between theory and experimentsJ. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85:732.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Costa, E. T., Leeman, S., and Hoddinott, J. C., 1988, A New Approach towards Measurement of Three-Dimensional Pulses: Linear and Nonlinear Fields, in: Physics in Medical Ultrasound IIEvans, D. H. And Martin, K.eds.IPSM, York, pp. 87–93.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Healey, A.J., Leeman, S., and Weight, J.P., 1997, Space-time imaging of transient ultrasound fieldsInt. J. of Imaging Systems and Technology 8:45.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hutchins, L. and Leeman, S., 1982, Tissue Parameter Measurement and Imaging, in: Acoustical Imaging 11J.P. Powersed.Plenum, New York, pp. 127–137.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jackson, J. D., 1999, Classical Electrodynamics3rd Ed.Wiley, New York, pp. 336–338.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leeman, S., 1980, Ultrasound pulse propagation in dispersive mediaPhys. Med. Biol. 25:481.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leeman, S., Jones, J.P., and Healey, A.J., 1998, Causality Revisited, in: Acoustical Imaging 24H. Leeed.Plenum, New York, pp. 121–126.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leeman, S., and Healey, A.J., 2000, Field Analysis with a New Field Simulation and Propagation Technique, in: Acoustical Imaging 25M. Halliwell and P.N.T. Wellseds.Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 41–50.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leeman, S., and Peyman, A., 2000, The Maxwell model as a soft tissue descriptor, in: Acoustical Imaging 25M. Halliwell and P.N.T. Wellseds.Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, pp. 357–362.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sidney Leeman
    • 1
  • Andrew J. Healey
    • 2
  • Eduardo T. Costa
    • 3
  1. 1.King’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Nycomed Imaging ASOsloNorway
  3. 3.Universidade Estadual de CampinasCampinas, SPBrazil

Personalised recommendations