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.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Scattering by single physically large and weak scatterers in the beam of a single-element transducer
1. A. J. Buckler, L. Bresolin, N. R. Dunnick, and D. C. Sullivan, “ Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification: Interrelated but distinct activities,” Radiology 259, 875–884 (2011).
2. A. J. Buckler, L. Bresolin, N. R. Dunnick, and D. C. Sullivan, “ A collaborative enterprise for multi-stakeholder participation in the advancement of quantitative imaging,” Radiology 258, 906–914 (2011).
3. M. F. Insana, T. J. Hall, J. G. Wood, and Z. Y. Yan, “ Renal ultrasound using parametric imaging techniques to detect changes in microstructure and function,” Invest. Radiol. 28, 720–725 (1993).
6. R. M. Vlad, S. Brand, A. Giles, M. C. Kolios, and G. J. Czarnota, “ Quantitative ultrasound characterization of responses to radiotherapy in cancer mouse models,” Clin. Cancer Res. 15, 2067–2075 (2009).
7. M. L. Oelze, W. D. O'Brien, Jr., J. P. Blue, and J. F. Zachary, “ Differentiation and characterization of rat mammary fiboradenomas and 4T1 mouse carcinomas using quantitative ultrasound imaging,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 23, 764–771 (2004).
8. J. Mamou, A. Coron, M. L. Oelze, E. Saegusa-Beecroft, M. Hata, P. Lee, E. J. Machi, E. Yanagihara, P. Laugier, and E. J. Feleppa, “ Three-dimensional high-frequency backscatter and envelope quantification of cancerous human lymph nodes,” Ultrasound Med. Biol. 37, 345–357 (2011).
11. J. P. Kemmerer, G. Ghoshal, C. Karunakaran, and M. L. Oelze, “ Assessment of high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of rodent mammary tumors using ultrasound backscatter coefficients,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 1559–1568 (2013).
14. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light ( Pergamon, New York, 1975), pp. 1–986.
15. A. Ishimaru, Wave Propagation and Scattering in Random Media ( Academic, New York, 1978), pp. 1–504.
16. K. P. K. Shung and G. A. Thieme, Ultrasonic Scattering in Biological Tissues ( CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1993), pp. 1–486.
17. M. F. Insana, R. F. Wagner, D. G. Brown, and T. J. Hall, “ Describing small-scale structure in random media using pulse-echo ultrasound,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 179–192 (1990).
21. T. D. Mast, L. M. Hinkleman, M. J. Orr, V. W. Sparrow, and R. C. Waag, “ Simulation of ultrasonic pulse propagation through the abdominal wall,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 1177–1190 (1997).
22. T. E. Doyle, A. T. Tew, K. H. Warnick, and B. L. Carruth, “ Simulation of elastic wave scattering in cells and tissues at the microscopic level,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 1751–1767 (2009).
23. J. Mamou, M. L. Oelze, W. D. O'Brien, Jr., and J. F. Zachary, “ Identifying ultrasonic scattering sites from three-dimensional impedance maps,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 413–423 (2005).
24. J. Mamou, M. L. Oelze, W. D. O'Brien, Jr., and J. F. Zachary, “ Extended three-dimensional impedance map methods for identifying ultrasonic scattering sites,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 1195–1208 (2008).
26. P. L. Marston, “ Scattering of a Bessel beam by a sphere: II. Helicoidal case and spherical shell example,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, 2905–2910 (2008).
27. F. G. Mitri, “ Equivalence of expressions for the acoustic scattering of a progressive high-order Bessel beam by an elastic sphere,” IEEE. Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelectr., Freq. Control 56, 1100–1103 (2009).
28. F. G. Mitri, “ Generalized theory of resonance excitation by sound scattering from an elastic spherical shell in a nonviscous fluid,” IEEE. Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelectr., Freq. Control 59, 1781–1790 (2012).
29. F. G. Mitri, “ Interaction of an acoustical quasi-Gaussian beam with a rigid sphere: Linear axial scattering, instantaneous force, and time-averaged radiation force [Correspondence],” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelectr., Freq. Control 59, 2347–2351 (2012).
31. A. J. Hesford, J. P. Astheimer, and R. C. Waag, “ Acoustic scattering by arbitrary distributions of disjoint, homogeneous cylinders or spheres,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127, 2883–2893 (2010).
32. T. K. Stanton, “ Simple approximate formulas for backscattering of sound by spherical and elongated objects,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 86, 1499–1510 (1989).
35. J. M. Mari, R. Blu, O. B. Matar, M. Unser, and C. Cachard, “ A bulk modulus dependent linear model for acoustical imaging,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 2413–2419 (2009).
36. R. J. Zemp, C. K. Abbey, and M. F. Insana, “ Linear systems models for ultrasonic imaging: Application to signal statistics,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelectr., Freq. Control 50, 642–654 (2003).
37. J. A. Jensen, “ Field: A program for simulated ultrasound system,” Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 34, 351–353 (1996).
38. J. A. Jensen and N. B. Svendsen, “ Calculation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelectr., Freq. Control 39, 262–267 (1992).
40. K. A. Wear, “ Measurement of dependence of backscatter coefficient from cylinders on frequency and diameter using focused transducers—with application to trabecular bone,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115, 66–72 (2004).
Article metrics loading...
Quantitative ultrasound techniques are generally applied to characterize media whose scattering sites are considered to be small compared to a wavelength. In this study, the backscattered response of single weakly scattering spheres and cylinders with diameters comparable to the beam width of a 2.25 MHz single-element transducer were simulated and measured in the transducer
focal plane to investigate the impact of physically large scatterers. The responses from large single spherical scatterers at the focus were found to closely match the plane-wave response. The responses from large cylindrical scatterers at the focus were found to differ from the plane-wave response by a factor of f
−1. Normalized spectra from simulations and measurements were in close agreement: the fall-off of the responses as a function of lateral position agreed to within 2 dB for spherical scatterers and to within 3.5 dB for cylindrical scatterers. In both measurement and simulation, single scatterer diameter estimates were biased by less than 3% for a more highly focused transducer compared to estimates for a more weakly focused transducer. The results suggest that quantitative ultrasound techniques may produce physically meaningful size estimates for media whose response is dominated by scatterers comparable in size to the transducer beam.
Full text loading...
Most read this month