{"title":"RF-based motion estimation using non-rigid image registration techniques: In-silico and in-vivo feasibility","authors":"B. Heyde, M. Alessandrini, L. Tong, J. D’hooge","doi":"10.1109/ULTSYM.2014.0568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"US deformation techniques can roughly be divided in block matching (BM) and non-rigid image registration (NRIR). Motion can be extracted from the radio-frequency (RF) signals, from their envelope, or from the B-mode data. RF-based BM is known to outperform B-mode tracking in a small displacement setting, whereas NRIR has only been applied to B-mode data. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of RF-based NRIR in-silico and in-vivo. First, synthetic 2D images of a phantom with a soft inclusion undergoing an axial compression (0.25%) were simulated. Its performance was assessed by varying the inclusion thickness (range: 2-20 mm in 2 mm steps) and stiffness (resulting strain range: 0.50%-1.50% in 0.25% steps). Both RF and envelope tracking were better at identifying smaller and more subtle inclusions compared to B-mode tracking (down to 8 mm and 6 mm resp.). Furthermore, when tracking the RF instead of their envelope, inclusion borders were more sharply defined (border size 2.57 mm vs 4.88 mm, p<;0.001) and strain errors in the inclusion were lower (0.08% vs 0.10%; p<;0.05). Next, NRIR was used to track the septum of a healthy volunteer from high frame rate US recordings (436 Hz), and compared against a recent RF-based BM method. In-vivo tracking revealed that RF-based BM and RF-based NRIR performed similarly, both producing physiological axial velocity and strain curves. The lateral components could only be estimated using NRIR.","PeriodicalId":153901,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ULTSYM.2014.0568","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
US deformation techniques can roughly be divided in block matching (BM) and non-rigid image registration (NRIR). Motion can be extracted from the radio-frequency (RF) signals, from their envelope, or from the B-mode data. RF-based BM is known to outperform B-mode tracking in a small displacement setting, whereas NRIR has only been applied to B-mode data. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of RF-based NRIR in-silico and in-vivo. First, synthetic 2D images of a phantom with a soft inclusion undergoing an axial compression (0.25%) were simulated. Its performance was assessed by varying the inclusion thickness (range: 2-20 mm in 2 mm steps) and stiffness (resulting strain range: 0.50%-1.50% in 0.25% steps). Both RF and envelope tracking were better at identifying smaller and more subtle inclusions compared to B-mode tracking (down to 8 mm and 6 mm resp.). Furthermore, when tracking the RF instead of their envelope, inclusion borders were more sharply defined (border size 2.57 mm vs 4.88 mm, p<;0.001) and strain errors in the inclusion were lower (0.08% vs 0.10%; p<;0.05). Next, NRIR was used to track the septum of a healthy volunteer from high frame rate US recordings (436 Hz), and compared against a recent RF-based BM method. In-vivo tracking revealed that RF-based BM and RF-based NRIR performed similarly, both producing physiological axial velocity and strain curves. The lateral components could only be estimated using NRIR.
US变形技术大致可分为块匹配(BM)和非刚性图像配准(NRIR)。运动可以从射频(RF)信号、包络或b模式数据中提取出来。众所周知,基于rf的BM在小位移环境中优于b模式跟踪,而NRIR仅应用于b模式数据。本研究的目的是测试基于射频的NRIR在硅和体内的可行性。首先,模拟具有软内含物的虚幻体的合成二维图像,并进行轴向压缩(0.25%)。通过改变夹杂物厚度(2 mm步骤中2-20 mm范围)和刚度(0.25%步骤中产生的应变范围:0.50%-1.50%)来评估其性能。与b模式跟踪(分别为8毫米和6毫米)相比,RF和包络线跟踪在识别更小、更细微的内含物方面都做得更好。此外,当跟踪RF而不是包络时,包体边界定义更清晰(边界尺寸为2.57 mm vs 4.88 mm, p< 0.001),并且包体中的应变误差更低(0.08% vs 0.10%;p < 0.05)。接下来,NRIR被用于跟踪来自高帧率美国录音(436 Hz)的健康志愿者的隔膜,并与最近基于rf的BM方法进行比较。体内跟踪显示,基于rf的BM和基于rf的NRIR的表现相似,都产生生理轴向速度和应变曲线。侧向分量只能用NRIR来估计。