Ultrasonic synthetic-aperture interface imaging
J.R. van der Neut (ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging )
J.T. Fokkema (ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging )
P.M. van den Berg (ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging )
Michael Zapf (Karlsruhe Institut für Technologie)
Nicole V. Ruiter (Karlsruhe Institut für Technologie)
Ulaş Taskin (ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging )
K.W.A. van Dongen (ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging )
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Synthetic-aperture (SA) imaging is a popular method to visualize the reflectivity of an object from ultrasonic reflections. The method yields an image of the (volume) contrast in acoustic impedance with respect to the embedding. Typically, constant mass density is assumed in the underlying derivation. Due to the band-limited nature of the recorded data, the image is blurred in space, which is quantified by the associated point spread function. SA volume imaging is valid under the Born approximation, where it is assumed that the contrast is weak. When objects are large with respect to the wavelength, it is questionable whether SA volume imaging should be the method-of-choice. Herein, we propose an alternative solution that we refer to as SA interface imaging. This approach yields a vector image of the discontinuities of acoustic impedance at the tissue interfaces. Constant wave speed is assumed in the underlying derivation. The image is blurred in space by a tensor, which we refer to as the interface spread function. SA interface imaging is valid under the Kirchhoff approximation, where it is assumed that the wavelength is small compared to the spatial dimensions of the interfaces. We compare the performance of volume and interface imaging on synthetic data and on experimental data of a gelatin cylinder with a radius of 75 wavelengths, submerged in water. As expected, the interface image peaks at the gelatin-water interface, while the volume image exposes a peak and trough on opposing sides of the interface.