RESUMEN
In ultrasound-based elastography methods, the estimation of shear wave velocity typically involves the tracking of speckle motion due to an applied force. The errors in the estimates of tissue displacement, and thus shear wave velocity, are generally attributed to electronic noise and decorrelation due to physical processes. We present our preliminary findings on another source of error, namely, speckle-induced bias in phase estimation. We find that methods that involve tracking in a single location, as opposed to multiple locations, are less sensitive to this source of error since the measurement is differential in nature and cancels out speckle-induced phase errors.
Asunto(s)
Diagnóstico por Imagen de Elasticidad/métodos , Electricidad , Interpretación de Imagen Asistida por Computador/métodos , Procesamiento de Imagen Asistido por Computador/métodos , Animales , Sesgo , Simulación por Computador , Módulo de Elasticidad , Hígado/diagnóstico por imagen , Modelos Biológicos , Movimiento (Física) , Fantasmas de Imagen , Procesamiento de Señales Asistido por Computador , Relación Señal-Ruido , PorcinosRESUMEN
Spatially modulated ultrasound radiation force (SMURF) imaging is an elastographic technique that involves generating a radiation force beam with a lateral intensity variation of a defined spatial frequency. This results in a shear wave of known wavelength. By using the displacements induced by the shear wave and standard Doppler or speckle-tracking methods, the shear wave frequency, and thus material shear modulus, is estimated. In addition to generating a pushing beam pattern with a specified lateral intensity variation, it is generally desirable to induce larger displacements so that the displacement data signal-to-noise ratio is higher. We provide an analysis of two beam forming methods for generating SMURF in an elastic material: the focal Fraunhofer and intersecting plane wave methods. Both techniques generate beams with a defined spatial frequency. However, as a result of the trade-offs associated with each technique, the peak acoustic intensity outputs in the region of interest differs for the same combinations of parameters (e.g., the focal depth, the width of the area of interest, and ultrasonic attenuation coefficient). Assuming limited transducer drive voltage, we provide a decision plot to determine which of the two techniques yields the greater pushing force for a specific configuration.