By Topic

Comparison of 3-D multi-lag cross- correlation and speckle brightness aberration correction algorithms on static and moving targets

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

3 Author(s)
Ivancevich, N.M. ; Biomed. Eng. Dept., Duke Univ., Durham, NC, USA ; Dahl, J.J. ; Smith, S.W.

Phase correction has the potential to increase the image quality of 3-D ultrasound, especially transcranial ultrasound. We implemented and compared 2 algorithms for aberration correction, multi-lag cross-correlation and speckle brightness, using static and moving targets. We corrected three 75-ns rms electronic aberrators with full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) auto-correlation lengths of 1.35, 2.7, and 5.4 mm. Cross-correlation proved the better algorithm at 2.7 and 5.4 mm correlation lengths (P < 0.05). Static cross-correlation performed better than moving-target cross-correlation at the 2.7 mm correlation length (P < 0.05). Finally, we compared the static and moving-target cross-correlation on a flow phantom with a skull casting aberrator. Using signal from static targets, the correction resulted in an average contrast increase of 22.2%, compared with 13.2% using signal from moving targets. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) increased by 20.5% and 12.8% using static and moving targets, respectively. Doppler signal strength increased by 5.6% and 4.9% for the static and moving-targets methods, respectively.

Published in:

Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:56 ,  Issue: 10 )