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.
Acoustic holography as a metrological tool for characterizing medical ultrasound sources and fields
1. D. Gabor, “ Light and information,” in Progress in Optics, edited by E. Wolf ( North Holland, Amsterdam, 1961), Vol. 1, pp. 109–153.
2. J. D. Maynard, E. G. Williams, and Y. Lee, “ Nearfield acoustic holography: I. Theory of generalized holography and the development of NAH,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 78(4), 1395–1413 (1985).
3. E. G. Williams, Fourier Acoustics: Sound Radiation and Nearfield Acoustical Holography ( Academic, San Diego, CA, 1999), Chaps. 3, 5, 7.
4. P. R. Stepanishen and K. C. Benjamin, “ Forward and backward projection of acoustic fields using FFT methods,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 71(4), 803–812 (1982).
5. M. E. Schafer and P. A. Lewin, “ Transducer characterization using the angular spectrum method,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85(5), 2202–2214 (1989).
6. R. Reibold and F. Holzer, “ Complete mapping of ultrasonic fields from optically measured data in a single cross-section,” Acustica 58, 11–16 (1985).
7. G. T. Clement, R. Liu, S. V. Letcher, and P. R. Stepanishen, “ Forward projection of transient signals obtained from a fiber-optic pressure sensor,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104(3), 1266–1273 (1998).
8. G. T. Clement and K. Hynynen, “ Field characterization of therapeutic ultrasound phased arrays through forward and backward planar projection,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108(1), 441–446 (2000).
9. S. F. Wu, “ Techniques for implementing near-field acoustical holography,” Sound Vib. 44(2), 12–16 (2010).
10. O. A. Sapozhnikov, Y. A. Pishchal'nikov, and A. V. Morozov, “ Reconstruction of the normal velocity distribution on the surface of an ultrasonic transducer from the acoustic pressure measured on a reference surface,” Acoust. Phys. 49(3), 354–360 (2003).
11. O. A. Sapozhnikov, A. E. Ponomarev, and M. A. Smagin, “ Transient acoustic holography for reconstructing the particle velocity of the surface of an acoustic transducer,” Acoust. Phys. 52(3), 324–330 (2006).
14. F. Coulouvrat, “ Continuous field radiated by a geometrically focused transducer—numerical investigation and comparison with an approximate model,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94(3), 1663–1675 (1993).
15. D. Cathignol, O. A. Sapozhnikov, and J. Zhang, “ Lamb waves in piezoelectric focused radiator as a reason for discrepancy between O'Neil's formula and experiment,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101(3), 1286–1297 (1997).
16. D. Cathignol, O. A. Sapozhnikov, and Y. Theillere, “ Comparison of acoustic fields radiated from piezoceramic and piezocomposite focused radiators,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105(5), 2612–2617 (1999).
17. D. Cathignol and O. A. Sapozhnikov, “ On the application of the Rayleigh integral to the calculation of the field of a concave focusing radiator,” Acoust. Phys. 45(6), 735–742 (1999).
18. O. A. Sapozhnikov and T. V. Sinilo, “ Acoustic field produced by a concave radiating surface with allowance for the diffraction,” Acoust. Phys. 48(6), 720–727 (2002).
19.AIUM/NEMA UD 2-2004, “ Acoustic output measurement standard for diagnostic ultrasound equipment,” revision 3 (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, 2009).
20.IEC/TS62556, “ Ultrasonics—field characterization—specification and measurement of field parameters for high intensity therapeutic ultrasound (HITU) transducers and systems” (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014), ed. 1.0.
23. G. Harris, “ FDA regulation of clinical high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) devices,” in Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009. EMBC 2009. Annual International Conference of the IEEE, edited by G. Worrell, X. Pan, Y. Kim, and B. He ( Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, 2009), pp. 145–148.
24. O. V. Bessonova, V. A. Khokhlova, M. S. Canney, M. R. Bailey, and L. A. Crum, “ A derating method for therapeutic applications of high intensity focused ultrasound,” Acoust. Phys. 56(3), 354–363 (2010).
25. S. A. R. Dibaji, R. K. Banerjee, J. E. Soneson, and M. R. Myers, “ Nonlinear derating of high-intensity focused ultrasound beams using Gaussian modal sums,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134(5), 3435–3445 (2013).
26. M. S. Canney, M. R. Bailey, L. A. Crum, V. A. Khokhlova, and O. A. Sapozhnikov, “ Acoustic characterization of high intensity focused ultrasound fields: A combined measurement and modeling approach,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124(4), 2406–2420 (2008).
28. W. Kreider, P. V. Yuldashev, O. A. Sapozhnikov, N. Farr, A. Partanen, M. R. Bailey, and V. A. Khokhlova, “ Characterization of a multi-element clinical hifu system using acoustic holography and nonlinear modeling,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 60(8), 1683–1698 (2013).
29. T. D. Mast, L. P. Souriau, D.-L. D. Liu, M. Tabei, A. I. Nachman, and R. C. Waag, “ A k-space method for large-scale models of wave propagation in tissue,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 48(2), 341–354 (2001).
30. R. J. Zemp, J. Tavakkoli, and R. S. Cobbold, “ Modeling of nonlinear ultrasound propagation in tissue from array transducers,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(1), 139–152 (2003).
31. B. E. Treeby, J. Jaros, A. P. Rendell, and B. T. Cox, “ Modeling nonlinear ultrasound propagation in heterogeneous media with power law absorption using a k-space pseudospectral method,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131(6), 4324–4336 (2012).
32. P. V. Yuldashev, S. M. Shmeleva, S. A. Ilyin, O. A. Sapozhnikov, L. R. Gavrilov, and V. A. Khokhlova, “ The role of acoustic nonlinearity in tissue heating behind a rib cage using a high-intensity focused ultrasound phased array,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58(8), 2537–2559 (2013).
33. A. D. Pierce, Acoustics: An Introduction to its Physical Principles and Applications ( Acoustical Society of America, New York, 1994), pp. 24–25.
34. C. J. Bouwkamp, “ A contribution to the theory of acoustic radiation,” Philips Res. Rep. 1(4), 251–277 (1946).
35. N. Bilaniuk and G. S. K. Wong, “ Speed of sound in pure water as a function of temperature,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93(3), 1609–1612 (1993).
36. N. Bilaniuk and G. S. K. Wong, “ Erratum: Speed of sound in pure water as a function of temperature,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 99(5), 3257 (1996).
37. W. Wagner and A. Pruß, “ The IAPWS formulation 1995 for the thermodynamic properties of ordinary water substance for general and scientific use,” J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 31(2), 387–535 (1999).
38. E. Oberg, F. D. Jones, H. L. Horton, and H. H. Ryffel, Machinery's Handbook, 26th ed. ( Industrial Press, New York, 2000), pp. 1716–1739, 1900.
40. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 7th ed. ( Cambridge University Press, New York, 1999), pp. 633–672.
41. A. O. Williams, “ Acoustic intensity distribution from a “piston” source: II. The concave piston,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 17(3), 219–227 (1946).
Article metrics loading...
Acoustic holography is a powerful technique for characterizing ultrasound sources and the fields they radiate, with the ability to quantify source vibrations and reduce the number of required measurements. These capabilities are increasingly appealing for meeting measurement standards in medical ultrasound; however, associated uncertainties have not been investigated systematically. Here errors associated with holographic representations of a linear, continuous-wave ultrasound field are studied. To facilitate the analysis, error metrics are defined explicitly, and a detailed description of a holography formulation based on the Rayleigh integral is provided. Errors are evaluated both for simulations of a typical therapeutic ultrasound source and for physical experiments with three different ultrasound sources. Simulated experiments explore sampling errors introduced by the use of a finite number of measurements, geometric uncertainties in the actual positions of acquired measurements, and uncertainties in the properties of the propagation medium. Results demonstrate the theoretical feasibility of keeping errors less than about 1%. Typical errors in physical experiments were somewhat larger, on the order of a few percent; comparison with simulations provides specific guidelines for improving the experimental implementation to reduce these errors. Overall, results suggest that holography can be implemented successfully as a metrological tool with small, quantifiable errors.
Full text loading...
Most read this month