Dual stage beamforming in the absence of front-end receive focusing

Journal Article (2017)
Author(s)

Deep Bera (Erasmus MC)

Johan G. Bosch (Erasmus MC)

Martin D. Verweij (ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging , Erasmus MC)

Nico De Jong (ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging , Erasmus MC)

Hendrik J. Vos (Erasmus MC, ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging )

ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa78df Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2017
Language
English
ImPhys/Acoustical Wavefield Imaging
Journal title
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Issue number
16
Volume number
62
Pages (from-to)
6631-6648
Downloads counter
164

Abstract

Ultrasound front-end receive designs for miniature, wireless, and/or matrix transducers can be simplified considerably by direct-element summation in receive. In this paper we develop a dual-stage beamforming technique that is able to produce a high-quality image from scanlines that are produced with focused transmit, and simple summation in receive (no delays). We call this non-delayed sequential beamforming (NDSB). In the first stage, low-resolution RF scanlines are formed by simple summation of element signals from a running sub-aperture. In the second stage, delay-and-sum beamforming is performed in which the delays are calculated considering the transmit focal points as virtual sources emitting spherical waves, and the sub-apertures as large unfocused receive elements. The NDSB method is validated with simulations in Field II. For experimental validation, RF channel data were acquired with a commercial research scanner using a 5 MHz linear array, and were subsequently processed offline. For NDSB, good average lateral resolution (0.99 mm) and low grating lobe levels (<-40 dB) were achieved by choosing the transmit as 0.75 and the transmit focus at 15 mm. NDSB was compared with conventional dynamic receive focusing (DRF) and synthetic aperture sequential beamforming (SASB) with their own respective optimal settings. The full width at half maximum of the NDSB point spread function was on average 20% smaller than that of DRF except for at depths <30 mm and 10% larger than SASB considering all the depths. NDSB showed only a minor degradation in contrast-to-noise ratio and contrast ratio compared to DRF and SASB when measured on an anechoic cyst embedded in a tissue-mimicking phantom. In conclusion, using simple receive electronics front-end, NDSB can attain an image quality better than DRF and slightly inferior to SASB.