1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Normal and shear strain imaging using 2D deformation tracking on beam steered linear array datasets
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.4770272
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/1/10.1118/1.4770272
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/1/10.1118/1.4770272

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Shear transformation for the spatial grid (top), along with the angular displacement vector. The left column shows the spatial grid and angular displacements obtained using a 8° beam-steered angle, respectively. The right column shows the spatial grid and angular displacement on a 0° spatial grid.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Projection of the actual displacement vector at point O, onto unit vectors along and perpendicular to beam steered direction.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Axial strain images obtained using 2D beam steered datasets for the uniformly elastic TM phantom (a) and an ellipsoidal inclusion phantom (b). The 0.02 value on the color bar represents a 2% strain. The ROIs shown on the images were used to estimate the SNR e and CNR e , respectively. The solid line represents the maximum beam steered angle used for angular compounding.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Plots of the mean SNR e and standard deviation (error bars) over ten independent RF datasets acquired on a uniformly elastic TM phantom demonstrating the impact of beam steered angular increment for 1D vs 2D deformation tracking.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Plots of mean SNR e and standard deviation (error bars) over ten independent RF datasets acquired on a uniform TM phantom demonstrating the impact of the maximum beam-steered angle on compounded strain images for 1D vs 2D deformation tracking.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Axial displacement (a) and (b) and lateral displacement (c) and (d) images obtained using 1D (a) and (c) and 2D (b) and (d), beam steered data for the asymmetric (30°) unbound ellipsoid TM phantom. The units in the color bar for the displacement is in millimeters.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Axial strain (a) and (b) and lateral strain (c) and (d) images obtained using 1D (a) and (c) and 2D (b) and (d), beam steered data for the asymmetric (30°) bound ellipsoid TM phantom. The 0.008 value on the color bar represents a 0.8% strain. The ROIs shown were used to estimate CNR e and strain stiffness contrast. The solid line represents the maximum beam steered angle used for angular compounding.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Axial-shear strain (a) and (b) and full-shear strain (c) and (d) images obtained using 1D (a) and (c) and 2D (b) and (d), beam steered data for the asymmetric (30°) bound ellipsoid TM phantom. The 0.006 value on the color bar represents a 0.6% strain. The ROIs shown were used to estimate CNR e and strain stiffness contrast.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Plots of mean CNR e and standard deviation (error bars) over ten independent beam-steered RF datasets acquired on the four ellipsoid TM phantoms demonstrating the impact of the beam steered angular increment for 1D vs 2D processing. The subplots represent results for (a) symmetric unbound, (b) asymmetric unbound, (c) symmetric bound, and (d) asymmetric bound phantoms, respectively.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Plots of mean CNR e and standard deviation (error bars) over ten independent RF datasets acquired on the four ellipsoid TM phantoms demonstrating the impact of the maximum beam-steered angle for 1D vs 2D processing. The subplots represent results for the (a) symmetric unbound, (b) asymmetric unbound, (c) symmetric bound, and (d) asymmetric bound phantom, respectively.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Plots of mean SNR e and standard deviation (error bars) over ten independent RF datasets acquired on an uniformly elastic TM phantom demonstrating the impact of different maximum angles on similar number of compounded strain images. Results are shown for 3 beam steered angles (a), 5 beam-steered angles (b), 7 beam-steered angles (c), and 11 beam-steered angles (d), respectively.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Mean and standard deviation of the strain stiffness contrast for the ellipsoidal inclusion TM phantoms for different angular increments for the 1D and 2D deformation tracking approaches.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Mean and standard deviation of the strain stiffness contrast for the ellipsoidal inclusion TM phantoms for different maximum beam steered angles for the 1D and 2D deformation tracking approaches.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/1/10.1118/1.4770272
2012-12-20
2014-04-23
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Normal and shear strain imaging using 2D deformation tracking on beam steered linear array datasets
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/40/1/10.1118/1.4770272
10.1118/1.4770272
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM