1670 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 69, NO.
3, MARCH 2021
Near-Field Radar-Based Microwave Imaging for
Breast Cancer Detection: A Study on
Resolution and Image Quality
Atefeh Naghibi
Abstract— Radar-based microwave imaging (MWI) systems
have shown encouraging results in early detection of breast
cancer; however, there exist remaining challenges. Resolution is
one of the most important issues not being addressed with clear
theoretical relations in medical MWI systems. In this analytical
study, we thoroughly clarify the relation of resolution to the most
fundamental aspects of an MWI system, namely, limited-view
versus full-view array geometry, monostatic versus multistatic
configuration, single-frequency versus wideband operation, and
near-field versus far-field imaging. This goal is achieved by
expressing the inverse scattering problem in the spatial frequency
domain and utilizing K-space representation. Besides, to analyze
the MWI system more accurately, the sidelobe level (SLL) of
its point-spread function (PSF) is taken into account. We show
that generally, the resolution limits of a multistatic configuration
are the same as its monostatic counterpart and, hence, have
no superiority in terms of resolution. In addition, in imaging
with a full-view array, the signal bandwidth has no effect on
the resolution. Thus, the single-frequency operation provides the
same resolution as the wideband operation. We also demonstrate
that the effect of using multistatic configuration or wideband
operation is to reduce the SLL of the PSF and, hence, improve
the image quality.
Index Terms— Breast cancer detection, microwave imaging
(MWI), radar-based image reconstruction, resolution, synthetic
aperture radar (SAR).
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE application of microwave imaging (MWI) in medical
diagnosis is an emerging area which has attracted several
research groups in the past two decades. A comprehensive
review of this topic can be found in [1]. Among different
investigated applications such as brain imaging and stroke
detection [2], [3], heart imaging [4], bone imaging [5], and
breast cancer detection [6]–[8], the latter, which is the focus
of this study, has been actively explored to date. Being low cost
and low health risk, MWI is a possible alternative to existing
breast imaging technologies, namely, X-ray mammography
and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Fear et al. [9] and
Nikolova [10] give an excellent insight into the potential and
Manuscript received October 2, 2019; revised April 20, 2020; accepted
July 30, 2020. Date of publication August 19, 2020; date of current version
March 3, 2021. (Corresponding author: Amir Reza Attari.)
Atefeh Naghibi is with the Communications and Computer Research Center,
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad 9177948974, Iran.
Amir Reza Attari is with the Electrical Engineering Department,
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad 9177948944, Iran (e-mail:
attari50@um.ac.ir).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article are available
online at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TAP.2020.3016407
0018-926X © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
and Amir Reza Attari
feasibility of MWI in early breast cancer detection. As pre-
sented there, two main approaches in MWI are microwave
tomography and radar-based imaging. The basic principle
behind these approaches is the difference between the elec-
trical properties of malignant and normal breast tissues.
Microwave tomography methods involve solving a nonlinear
and ill-posed inverse scattering problem in order to retrieve
the electrical properties of the breast. Meaney et al. [11] and
Halter et al. [12] from Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
have studied microwave tomography breast imaging since the
1990s and conducted extensive patient studies with prototype
systems [11], [12].
In radar-based MWI, the goal is not to reconstruct the
electrical profile of the tissues but to detect and determine
the position of highly scattering objects (tumors). Radar-
based imaging algorithm for breast cancer detection was first
proposed by Hagness et al. [8] in 1998. A prototype system
for mono-static radar-based imaging has been implemented
at the University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada [13], and
the resultant images of scanning eight patients are reported
in [6]. Klemm et al. [7] and Byrne et al. [14] have developed
multistatic radar-based imaging systems at the University of
Bristol, Bristol, U.K., and presented encouraging results and
also challenges of patient studies in [15]. Although pioneering
efforts have been made toward enhancing MWI systems, there
are still remaining challenges to be met.
One concept of radar-based breast imaging that needs
further clarification is the achievable resolution. Although
synthetic aperture radar (SAR) concepts, such as resolution,
diffraction tomography, and other related topics are well
discussed for decades, most literature on these topics are
based for geophysical applications which correspond to far-
field imaging [16], [17]. However, medical applications have
two significant differences; the most common geometry in
medical MWI is full-view arrays in contrast to limited-view
arrays of geophysical applications, and also most medical
MWI applications concern with near-field imaging that have
some resolution benefits over the far-field imaging. These
two features, full-view geometry and near-field imaging, are
generally neglected in the literature as were not the framework
of geophysical imaging systems. Thus, when SAR concepts
have been adopted for medical near-field imaging, it has
resulted in some ambiguities in determining the resolution of
radar-based medical imaging systems. In this article, we seek
to clarify the possible resolution of a radar-based microwave
 NAGHIBI AND ATTARI: NEAR-FIELD RADAR-BASED MWI FOR BREAST CANCER DETECTION
breast imaging system considering the mentioned features.
Up to now, there is no comprehensive study on the medical
MWI systems, allowing for an efficient choice of frequency,
bandwidth, array geometry, and configuration.
This article presents a comprehensive theoretical study on
the achievable resolution and image quality of medical MWI
systems. We thoroughly clarify the relation of resolution to
the most fundamental aspects of an MWI system, namely,
limited-view versus full-view antenna array geometry, mono-
static versus multistatic configuration, single-frequency versus
wideband operation, and near-field versus far-field imaging.
To this end, though the underlying theories start with the well-
known inverse scattering problem and are driven via Fourier
analysis, we have formulated it for the most common geometry
in medical MWI systems, a full-view array geometry to exploit
interesting results.
For instance, radar-based MWI is generally considered in
the literature as an ultrawideband (UWB) method which its
range resolution is predominantly controlled by the system
bandwidth [1], [9], [18]. In this article, it is demonstrated
that the system resolution in a full-view array is independent
of the signal bandwidth. This is the key point for designing
single-frequency radar imaging systems and, hence, avoiding
the problems of UWB systems such as complexity and high
cost, difficulties in calibration, and imaging of dispersive
targets [19]. Besides, we show that a multistatic configuration
provides the same resolution as its monostatic counterpart and,
hence, does not have superiority in terms of resolution.
Let us start with the definition of resolution. Resolution of
an imaging system is equal to the minimum distance between
two adjacent targets required to be distinguished as two
separate targets [20]. For resolution analysis, it is suggested to
explore the point spread function (PSF) of the imaging system.
PSF of a system describes its capability to image a point target
and, hence, is a measure to evaluate the performance of the
imaging system [21]. PSF can be expressed as a 2-D image
of a point scatterer or 1-D cross sections of the image [21].
According to the PSF, different criteria for determining the
system resolution can be defined. One of them is the Buxton
criterion stating that two targets are only resolved if there is a
drop of at least 50%, i.e., 6 dB, in amplitude between two
maxima of the composite spread function. In other words,
it defines the resolution as the full-width at half-maximum
(FWHM) of the amplitude PSF [20]. This criterion is utilized
in this article.
In addition to the PSF main lobe characteristics that reveal
the system resolution limits, the PSF sidelobe level (SLL) is
also of importance and affects the overall quality of the output
images. The PSF SLL is properly discussed later in this article;
however, it is rarely discussed in the literature. We demonstrate
that multistatic configuration leads to a smoother PSF with
lower sidelobes in contrast to the PSF of its monostatic
counterpart, which is the reason behind its better imaging
performance.
In this article, we study the 2-D problem where both the
antenna array and target dimensions are infinite and invariant
along the third dimension (z-axis here). Two possible geome-
tries of limited-view and full-view arrays are considered in
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1671
Fig. 1. Schematic of imaging problem with a linear array of length L and
an object of area S.
Sections II and III, respectively. These two sections first review
the underlying theories of MWI, then describe the K-space
representation of different scenarios, and finally present the
simulation results. These results are followed by a thorough
interpretation. Section IV provides further discussion on the
desired PSF characteristics and the effect of K-space sampling
on the PSF of an imaging system. Finally, this article is
concluded in Section V.
II. I MAGING W ITH A L IMITED -V IEW A RRAY
A typical scenario of MWI for breast cancer detec-
tion [22]–[25], through-the-wall radar imaging [19], [26] and
ground penetration radar (GPR) applications [27] consists of
a linear array of transmitters and receivers placed in one side
of the object to be imaged. Thus, a linear array is studied here
as a common example of a limited-view array.
Imaging with a multistatic planar array in 3-D problems
is explained well in [28]. Here, we study 2-D imaging via
a linear array more thoroughly, to cover the effects of three
most important aspects of an imaging system, namely, mono-
static versus multistatic configuration, single-frequency versus
wideband operation, and near-field versus far-field imaging.
In Section III, the linear limited-view array will be compared
with a full-view array to provide a better insight into the
influence of array geometry on the imaging properties.
In this paper, the breast and the matching medium are
considered as a homogenous medium [18], [29]. Also, it is
assumed that the skin effect has been removed ideally with
a skin artifact removal algorithm [30]. This enables us to
use the free-space Green’s function and avoid unnecessary
complications when advancing the theory. It also provides
a more general view of the imaging problem that can be
extended for various applications ranging from breast/head
imaging to GPR applications. In future works, a more precise
Green’s function, e.g., that of a layered medium [31], can then
be applied to modify the results more accurately.
A. Theory
Fig. 1 depicts an array of length L, within the background
medium of free space, and a target with relative permittivity
εr , conductivity σ , and area of S.
The scattered field received at the antenna array can be
expressed as

     
Es ρ r , ρ t , k = O(ρ) · E ρ t , ρ, k · G ρ, ρ r , k dρ (1)
S
 1672 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 69, NO. 3, MARCH 2021

where ρ, ρ t , and ρ r are the position vectors of the target, appendix of [28], one can derive
transmitter, and receiver. O(ρ) is the contrast function of the  
target defined as O(ρ) = k 2 (εr (ρ) − 1), where k is the F1D {ex p(− j krt )} = ex p − j k yt D − j k yt y − j k xt x
 
wavenumber in the propagation medium, εr is the relative F1D {ex p(− j krr )} = ex p − j k yr D − j k yr y − j k xr x . (9)
complex permittivity of the object, E is the total electric
Substituting (9) into (4) and after some algebraic arrange-
field inside the target, and G is the Green’s function for the
ments, the spatial Fourier transform of the received scattered
background medium.
field E s can be expressed as
Under the first-order Born approximation, the total electric  
field inside the target E can be approximated by the incident
  

E s (k xt , k xr , k) = ex p − j k yt + k yr D · O(x, y)
field, E i . Assume that the transmitters are 2-D line sources so x y

  
that the incident field and the Green’s function are of the form · ex p − j (k xt +k xr )x − j k yt +k yr y · d x d y.
of Hankel function and with far-field approximation, we have
(10)
    
E i ρ t , ρ, k ∼= ex p − j k|ρ t − ρ| / |ρ t − ρ| Now, by defining k x = k xt + k xr and k y = k yt + k yr , (10)
    
G ρ, ρ , k ∼
r = ex p − j k|ρ − ρ| / |ρ − ρ|.
r (2) r represents a 2-D Fourier transform of the contrast function of
the object
For image reconstruction via beamforming techniques that  
 
synthetically focus the backscattered signals, the phase infor-
E s (k xt , k xr , k) = ex p − j k y D · O(x, y)
mation plays the major role. Therefore, for the sake of x y
 
simplicity and without loss of generality, the magnitude factors · ex p − j k x x − j k y y · d x d y
are dropped hereinafter. Hence, considering that (x t , yt ) and  
= ex p − j k y D · F2D {O(x, y)}. (11)
(x r , yr ) are transmitters and receivers positions, respectively,
and yt = yr = −D, (1) in the Cartesian coordinate system is The above equation shows that the spatial Fourier transform
now rewritten as of the received scattered field can be used to determine the
  spatial spectrum of O(x, y). This spatial spectrum determines
E s (x t , xr , k) = O(x, y) also the achievable resolution of the image. Although Fourier
x y
   imaging is not utilized in this study, the K-space representation
· ex p − j k (x t − x)2 + (−D−y)2 of E s is beneficial to find out the possible image resolution
   of the system and its dependence to the bandwidth, array
geometry and array configuration.
· ex p − j k (xr − x)2 + (−D−y)2
· d x d y. (3) B. K-Space Representation
By taking the 2-D Fourier transform of both sides of (3) and To better understand the effect of system bandwidth and
gaining insight into the K-space or spatial frequency domain configuration on the K-space sampling and spatial resolution,
representation of the image, we would have a better under- we start with a multistatic and single-frequency linear array,
standing of imaging properties like the image resolution. Let then move on to the multiple-frequency (or wideband) array

E s be the spatial Fourier transform of the received scattered and also its monostatic counterpart.
field E s , then we have 1) Imaging With a Multistatic Linear Array: First, consider
an infinite multistatic linear array that works at a single

 2D{E s (x t , xr , k)}
E s (k xt , k xr , k) = F frequency. We know that
= O(x, y) · F1D {ex p(− j krt )} 2
k xt + k 2yt = k 2 , k xr
2
+ k 2yr = k 2 . (12)
x y
· F1D {ex p(− j krr )} · d x d y (4) Hence, using the previously mentioned definitions of
k x and k y , we have
in which
  2
(k x − k xt )2 + k y − k yt = k 2 . (13)
rt = (x t − x)2 + (−D−y)2 (5)
 Equation (13) shows the locus of circles in K-space with a
rr = (xr − x)2 + (−D−y)2 (6) constant radius of k and variable centers of (k xt , k yt ). Also,

according to (12), the center points of (k xt , k yt ) locate on a
F1D {ex p(− j krt )} = ex p(− j krt ) · ex p(− j k xt x t ) · d x t
xt circle of the same radius k around the origin. Geometry of the
(7) problem in Fig. 1 shows that k yt and k yr , and consequently

k y , are always positive in this system, so only semicircles
F1D {ex p(− j krr )} = ex p(− j krr ) · ex p(− j k xr xr ) · d xr . with positive k y can be allocated. Fig. 2 depicts the area that
xr
(8) an infinite multistatic linear array supports in K-space. Each
transmitter takes a sample on the central semicircle and then
The Fourier integrals in (7) and (8) can be derived with receivers, sensing the backscattered signal of each transmitter,
the stationary phase method. Similar to the procedure in the collect samples on a new semicircle.

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 NAGHIBI AND ATTARI: NEAR-FIELD RADAR-BASED MWI FOR BREAST CANCER DETECTION 1673

Fig. 2. K-space support of an infinite multistatic linear array with single-

frequency operation.

In reality, the linear array is of finite length and thus, has

a limited view of the object. It means that a smaller area of
K-space could be sampled relative to the infinite one. For the
corresponding spatial frequency components, we have
k xt = k · cos ϕt , k yt = k · si n ϕt
k xr = k · cos ϕr , k yr = k · si n ϕr (14)
in which, ϕt and ϕr are the viewing angles of the transmitter
and receiver to a point of the target as illustrated in Fig. 1.
Clearly, the extent of coverage along the k x and k y directions
depends on the maximum and minimum of the viewing angles
and, hence, is different for each pixel of the object. To make
some sense, consider a point target at the origin in Fig. 1.
The finite-length multistatic linear array would sample the
area represented in Fig. 3(a). The more limited the K-space Fig. 3. K-space support of a finite-length multistatic linear array with
(a) single-frequency operation and (b) wideband operation, considering a point
sampled area, the lower the achievable resolution. If this target at (0, 0).
system works in multiple frequencies (or with a nonzero
bandwidth), multiple values of k exist and, hence, a more
expanded area of K-space is sampled, as shown in Fig. 3(b).
As it pushes the limits of K-space sampled area, the wideband
system yields a better resolution in both directions.
2) Imaging With a Monostatic Linear Array: In a monosta-
tic configuration, the same antenna is used to both transmit and
receive the signal and, hence, k xt = k xr and k yt = k yr , leading
to k x = 2k xt and k y = 2k yt . Thus, for an infinite monostatic
linear array that works in a single frequency, (13) turns into
k x2 + k 2y = 4k 2 . (15)
Fig. 4. K-space support of an infinite monostatic linear array with single-
This is the locus of a circle with a constant radius of 2k frequency operation.
and a constant center of the origin. Again, because the linear
array collects data on one side of the object, a semicircle of
this locus with k y ≥ 0 can be allocated. As depicted in Fig. 4, a well-known fact that a multistatic system outperforms its
this imaging system can only take samples on a semicircle of monostatic counterpart in image reconstruction, as it collects
K-space, whereas its multistatic counterpart allows for an area more data of the K-space. We will demonstrate how this
to be sampled (Fig. 2). affects the image quality. Prior to that, let us complete this
This is the plain truth behind the different performances section with the finite-length linear array. Clearly, for a point
of monostatic and multistatic imaging systems. Note that it target at the origin in Fig. 1 and with a single-frequency
does not affect the resolution of these systems. Resolution is monostatic linear array of the length L, a limited part of the
related to the limits of the support in K-space, and comparison semicircles in Fig. 4 could be sampled. If this array transmits
of Figs. 2 and 4 shows that the K-space limits of both and receives a wideband signal, then the K-space support
the multistatic and monostatic infinite linear arrays along would be expanded, as shown in Fig. 5. In this case, an area
the k x and k y directions are the same. It means that both the of K-space can be effectively sampled, and this advantage
abovementioned systems have the same capability in terms of motivates us to combine monostatic imaging systems with
resolution as it will be shown in Section II-C. However, it is wideband operation.

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1674 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 69, NO. 3, MARCH 2021

of the antenna array. Obtaining range resolution even with

Fig. 5. K-space support of a finite-length monostatic linear array with
wideband operation, and considering a point target at (0, 0).
zero bandwidth or single-frequency operation is the advantage
achieved by near-field imaging, for both the monostatic and
multistatic configurations. In [28], this advantage is assigned
to using the “multistatic” configuration in the near field.
It is worth mentioning that within the radiating near field of
an array, the planar, cylindrical, or spherical approximations of
propagating waves might be invalid. Nevertheless, these issues
are commonly ignored in analytic studies as a simplification
to derive important analytical results [28], [32].
Equations (18) and (20) also remind that a predefined
bandwidth in different central frequencies leads to different
resolutions; the higher the central frequency, the better the
resolution. However, there exists a tradeoff between resolution
and penetration depth in most of the applications.

C. Spatial Resolution D. Simulation Results and Discussion

According to the Fourier transform relation of (11), the lat- To validate the theoretical results and better demonstrate the
eral and range resolutions (δx and δ y , respectively) of a system effect of a linear array configuration, frequency bandwidth,
with a linear array can be approximated as and distance on the image resolution and quality, numerical
2π 2π simulations are conducted at MATLAB environment. In order
δx = , δy = (16) to analyze the image properties of the imaging system, the PSF
k x k y
of the system must be evaluated. Assume L = 10 cm, as a typ-
where k x is the support along the k x direction given by ical size of the array for breast imaging, and consider a point
k x = k xmax − k xmin , and k y is the support along the k y target on the y-axis, in Fig. 1, positioned at different distances
direction and similarly, k y = k max y − k min
y . For a point target from the array. The dielectric constant of the propagation
at the origin and using a finite-length linear array, for both the medium is also set as εr = 9, a common value for a normal
multistatic and monostatic configurations, we have fatty breast which is a low-water-content tissue [7], [23], [33].
⎧
⎪
⎪ −2k max An estimate of O(x, y) can be achieved by inversing
⎪
⎪ k xmin = k xt
min
+ k xr
min
=   2 the integral of (3) using back-projection method and then
⎪
⎨ 1 + 2D L discretization [28]. This is expressed as
(17) 
⎪
⎪ 2k max
⎪
⎪ x
k max
= k max
+ k max
=  O(x, y) ≈ E s (x t , xr , k)
⎪
⎩
xt xr  2
1 + 2D ∀k ∀x r ∀xt

L   
 2
2π v 2D · ex p + j k (x t − x)2 + (−D−y)2
δx = = 1+ (18)
k x 4f max L   
· ex p + j k (xr − x) + (−D−y) . (21)
2 2
and
⎧
⎪
⎪ 2k min Usually, the result is squared and displayed as the final
⎨k min = k min
+ k min
= 
y yt yr  L 2 image, being similar to the radar cross section [21]. Fig. 6
⎪ 1 + 2D (19)
presents the results of applying squared back-projection algo-
⎪
⎩k max = k max + k max = 2k max
y yt yr rithm to the backscattered signals received by the linear array,
2π v/2 i.e., 2-D intensity PSF.
δy = =   (20)
k y When working single-frequency [Fig. 6(b) and (c)], as the
f + f min 1−  1
target gets further away, both range and lateral resolution
1+( 2D )
L 2

deteriorate, until there is no way to detect the target’s location

in which f max and f min are the maximum and minimum
frequency of operation,  f denotes the signal bandwidth, and
v is the speed of the wave in the propagation medium.
According to (20), in far-field imaging, D  L, the range
resolution turns into δ y = v/2 f , the familiar expression in
SAR imaging. The notable point of (20) is that in close range
imaging, i.e., when the second term of the denominator of
(20) is comparable with its first term, the range resolution
can be improved even beyond the limit set by the bandwidth.
In applications studied here, close range imaging means that
the object is in the radiating near field (or Fresnel zone)
in the desired window as illustrated in the third images of
Fig. 6(b) and (c), in which the target is in y = −10 cm.
Although this is not a natural case in breast cancer detection,
it is addressed here for the sake of generality. Note that both
the multistatic and monostatic imaging have range resolution
in near field, emphasizing the point that achieving range
resolution in a single-frequency linear array is the benefit
of near-field imaging, not using the multistatic configuration.
By adding a bandwidth of 1–10 GHz, the range resolution
improves remarkably, in both the monostatic and multistatic
configurations, while it has no effect on the lateral resolution.

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 NAGHIBI AND ATTARI: NEAR-FIELD RADAR-BASED MWI FOR BREAST CANCER DETECTION 1675

Fig. 6. Point target detection by a linear array of length L = 10 cm. (a) Multistatic with a bandwidth of 1–10 GHz. (b) Multistatic at a single
frequency of 10 GHz. (c) Monostatic at a single frequency of 10 GHz. (d) Monostatic with a bandwidth of 1–10 GHz. The point target position is
(0, 4 cm), (0, 0), and (0, −10 cm) in order from top to bottom.

TABLE I
R ANGE R ESOLUTION OF I MAGING W ITH A L IMITED -V IEW A RRAY

Fig. 7. 1-D amplitude PSFs of the monostatic single-frequency linear array

with a point target at (0, 0), PSF is calculated at (a) y = 0 and (b) x = 0.

Another point to be mentioned is the difference between

images obtained from single-frequency monostatic and multi-
by (18) and (20). The values of lateral and range resolu-
static imaging. The former, illustrated in Fig. 6(c), has higher
tions obtained from (18) and (20) are 3.53 and 17.07 mm,
sidelobes in comparison with Fig. 6(b), which is its multistatic
respectively. Similarly, in other cases, i.e., for PSFs related
counterpart. This is due to the effect of sampling on an area
to Fig. 6(a)–(d), there exists a close resemblance between
instead of an arc, the inherent feature of single-frequency
theoretical estimates and simulation.
multistatic imaging in contrast to the single-frequency mono-
Table I summarizes the relation of range resolution to
static operation. Furthermore, wideband operation results in
different parameters in the case of using a limited-view array.
more clear images, i.e., lower sidelobes, in comparison with
Note that the relations are valid and equal for both the
the single-frequency imaging, for both the monostatic and
multistatic and monostatic configurations.
multistatic configurations, due to the more expanded area of
sampling as discussed before. Section IV investigates this
effect thoroughly. III. I MAGING W ITH A F ULL -V IEW A RRAY
To check out the simulation results, Fig. 7 shows 1-D ampli- Another common array geometry is an encircling array that
tude PSFs of the monostatic single-frequency linear array, in surrounds the target. This geometry can be used in various
which the target is placed at (0, 0). The PSF is depicted at civil and industrial applications, such as evaluation of concrete
y = 0, for the lateral resolution, and x = 0, for the range reso- structures, wood and trees, or medical applications such as
lution. It shows that the FWHM of PSFs can be well estimated head and breast imaging [34]. For a better comparison with

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1676 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 69, NO. 3, MARCH 2021

With definitions of k x = k xt + k xr and k y = k yt + k yr , (23) is

rewritten as

E s (k xt , k xr , k)

  
= 4 exp −jk yt a + exp(− j k xt a)

  
· exp −jk yr a + exp(− j k xr a)
 
 
· O(x, y) · ex p − j k x x − j k y y · d x d y

x y  
= 4 exp −jk yt a + exp(− j k xt a)

  
· exp −jk yr a + exp(− j k xr a) · F2D {O(x, y)}. (24)
This equation confirms the Fourier transform relation of the
scattered field received by the square array and the contrast
function, or image, of the target.

Fig. 8. Schematic of imaging problem with a square array of side length 2a B. K-Space Representation
and an object of area S.
It would be interesting to see the effect of imaging with
a full-view array on the K-space sampling and resolution.
We show that the possible achievable resolution in both
the linear array discussed before, we consider a square array
directions is approximately constant, neither depending on the
consisting of four linear arrays, as shown in Fig. 8. This choice
bandwidth nor relating to the distance (near field/far field).
does not question the generality of the result, and it can be
Thus, equation δ = v/2 f is not valid here, even at the far
easily extended to circular or other encircling-structure arrays.
field.
1) Imaging With a Multistatic Square Array: For the single-
A. Theory frequency operation, similar to the procedure of the linear
The most significant difference of a square and a linear array array, we reach to the equation of (k x − k xt )2 + (k y −
is that the former provides a full view of the target, while the k yt )2 = k 2 . However, having a full-view of the target,
latter limits the viewing angles. Consequently, a square array i.e., allowing for both positive and negative values of k x and
takes samples in K-space more widely rather than a linear k y , we have the ability to sample on the whole circles. Fig. 9(a)
array. Similar to the linear array, the received scattered field represents the K-space support of a multistatic square array in
in the Cartesian coordinate system can be written as single-frequency operation. For a point target inside the array,
  each transmitter corresponds a point on the central circle,
E s (x t , yt , xr , yr , k) = O(x, y) shown with green color, and then, receivers collect samples
x y
   on circles which their centers are placed on the central circle
· ex p − j k (x t − x)2 + (yt −y)2 corresponding to the transmitter.
   Note that while adding a bandwidth to the multistatic linear
· ex p − j k (xr − x) + (yr −y)
2 2 array could expand the K-space sampling area, in this scenario,
it does not affect the K-space support significantly, if k max
· dx dy (22) in wideband operation is not higher than the value of k in
single frequency operation. It means that adding a bandwidth
in which (x t , yt ) and (xr , yr ) are transmitters’ and receivers’
to a multistatic full-view array imaging system for the sake of
positions, respectively. Taking 2-D Fourier transform of both
resolution enhancement might not be logical.
sides of (22) and applying stationary phase method, we have
2) Imaging With a Monostatic Square Array: Again, (15)

E s (k xt , k xr , k) describes the locus of sampling points in K-space with a
= F2D {E s (x t , yt , xr , yr , k)} single-frequency and monostatic square array, which is a fixed
  circle with a constant radius of 2k centered at the origin,
= O(x, y) as shown in Fig. 9(b). For a point target inside the array,
x y
each transmitter corresponds a point on the inner central circle,
· F1D {ex p(− j krt )} · F1D {ex p(− j krr )} · d x d y

   shown with green color, and then, the receiver antenna placed
= 4 exp −jk yt a + exp(− j k xt a) at the same direction of the transmitter takes a sample on the

  
· exp −jk yr a + exp(− j k xr a) outer circle in the K-space.
 

   Now, by adding a bandwidth to the system, various circles
· O(x, y) · ex p − j (k xt +k xr )x − j k yt +k yr y ·d x d y on the K-space can be sampled, allowing for sampling in an
x y
area. Fig. 9(c) depicts the K-space support of a wideband
(23)
monostatic square array that now can be comparable with
  length (Fig. 8), rt =
in which 2a is the square array side Fig. 9(a). It clearly explains why the performance of a single-
(x t − x)2 + (yt −y)2 , and rr = (xr − x)2 + (yr − y)2 . frequency monostatic imaging system cannot compete with

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 NAGHIBI AND ATTARI: NEAR-FIELD RADAR-BASED MWI FOR BREAST CANCER DETECTION 1677

Fig. 9. K-space support of (a) multistatic square array with single-frequency operation and (b) and (c) monostatic square array with single-frequency operation
and wideband operation, respectively.

its multistatic counterpart unless it relies on a wide frequency TABLE II

band. R ESOLUTION OF I MAGING W ITH A F ULL -V IEW A RRAY

C. Spatial Resolution
For any point inside the array, and according to (16), we can
approximately define the resolutions of both the multistatic and
monostatic along the x- and y-axes as

k xmin = k xt
min
+ k xr
min
= −2k max
(25)
k xmax = k xt
max
+ k xr
max
= 2k max

k min
y = k min
yt + k yr = −2k
min max
Fig. 10(c) shows that a monostatic full-view array operating
(26)
k max
y = k max
yt + k yr = 2k
max max
at a single frequency can effectively detect a target anywhere
2π v in between. It means that the system resolution in any direction
δx = δ y = max = . (27) is not restricted to having a bandwidth, while it was restricted
4k 4 f max
for the far-field imaging with a limited-view array [Fig. 6(c)].
According to the symmetry of K-space in Fig. 9, one can Adding a bandwidth of 1–10 GHz to the signal [Fig. 10(d)]
conclude that (27) is valid for the resolution of any radial or turning to a multistatic configuration [Fig. 10(b)] does not
direction. This equation proves that—regardless of monostatic improve the resolution; however, it results in an image with
or multistatic configurations, far-field or near-field imaging, lower sidelobes. In Section IV, we discuss the reason behind
and single-frequency or wideband operation, the possible this behavior.
resolution is about λ/4, and it does not show any dependency Comparing Fig. 10(a) and (b) implies that adding a band-
on bandwidth or distance. width to a multistatic full-view array does not necessarily
Equation (27) confirms the possibility of having a reason- improve the resolution and image quality (as expected from
able resolution in full-view radar imaging with zero band- K-space representation). Thus, wideband operation may not
width. It should be emphasized that this capability does not be preferable to a multistatic full-view array, especially that it
owe to the multistatic configuration or even near-field imaging, adds complexity to the imaging system.
but it is due to using the full-view array that enables us to Fig. 11 shows the 1-D amplitude PSF of the point target
sample symmetrically along the axes. positioned at the center of the imaging system, working at a
single frequency of 10 GHz and with a monostatic configu-
D. Simulation Results and Discussion ration. Note that 1-D PSFs at x = 0 or y = 0 cross sections
are the same. The FWHM of PSF in Fig. 11 is approximately
Back-projection algorithm is applied on the scattered signals
equal to the estimate made by (27)
received by the square array shown in Fig. 8. The square array
v
has a side length of 2a = 10 cm and is surrounding a point δx = δ y = = 2.5 mm. (28)
target placed at different positions. The propagation medium 4 f max
has a dielectric constant of 9, resembling a homogeneous To summarize this section, Table II reports the relation of
fatty breast tissue. Fig. 10 depicts the squared reconstructed resolution to different parameters, for a full-view array, which
images using wideband multistatic, single-frequency multi- is valid for both multistatic and monostatic configurations.
static, single-frequency monostatic, and wideband monostatic In contrast to Table I, neither bandwidth nor near-field imaging
arrays. improves the resolution. Note that these results are valid for

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1678 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 69, NO. 3, MARCH 2021

Fig. 10. Point target detection by a square array of side length 2a = 10 cm. (a) Multistatic with a bandwidth of 1–10 GHz. (b) Multistatic at a single frequency
of 10 GHz. (c) Monostatic at a single frequency of 10 GHz. (d) Monostatic with a bandwidth of 1–10 GHz. The point target position is (0, 0), (0, −2 cm),
and (2 cm, 2 cm) in order from top to bottom.

the SLL with a broader main lobe. This is not good in

Fig. 11. 1-D amplitude PSF of the monostatic single-frequency square array
with a point target at (0, 0), PSF is calculated at y = 0 (or x = 0).
any full-view array independent of its shape, because the limits
of the K-space support do not change by the shape of the array.
IV. F URTHER D ISCUSSION ON PSF’ S C HARACTERISTICS
The main features of PSF are the main-lobe width, deter-
mining the resolving power of the system, and the SLL. The
desired PSF is the sharp and focused one, with minimized
SLL. When the SLL is high, it may lead to ambiguities and
false detection, especially in a multitarget environment or in
the presence of clutter.
Let us consider a point target at the origin, i.e., f (x, y) =
δ(x, y). Its 2-D Fourier transform is the constant function of
F(k x , k y ) = 1 in the whole K-space. However, it is possible
to take sample only on a limited part of the space, i.e., a ring,
an arc, or an area. Therefore, by taking an inverse Fourier
transform (IFT) of the limited K-space samples, f (x, y) would
be reconstructed as an unlimited sinc-shaped function rather
than a Dirac delta.
The effect of sampling on an area of K-space instead of
a ring or an arc is to make the PSF softer; i.e., to lower
terms of resolution; however, SLL reduction is necessary for
appropriate imaging.
For further explanation, we consider a single-frequency
monostatic full-view array to image a point target. In this
case, a ring of the K-space can be sampled as shown in
Section III. The IFT of this ring’s samples is a symmetrical
sinc-shaped function focused at the target position. Adding
another frequency to the system leads to sampling on a
different ring in the K-space, and in image reconstruction,
this corresponds to summation of two sinc-shaped functions
centered at the point target. As shown in Fig. 12(a), the central
maxima add constructively but the sidelobes tend to add
destructively. Therefore, imaging in multiple frequencies leads
to a smoother PSF with lower sidelobes than the single-
frequency one. Clearly, at the extreme case of wideband
imaging, SLL would be at the minimum amount in comparison
with multiple- and single-frequency operation. This is the key
benefit of wideband imaging over single-frequency operation.
Fig. 12(b) shows the PSF of wideband operation versus
single-frequency operation of a monostatic square array. For
the example illustrated in Fig. 12(b), SLL decreases from
−14.8 to −61.9 dB, while FWHM increases from 2.4 to 4 mm.
The same is the effect of multistatic configuration. When we
utilize a single-frequency multistatic full-view array instead
of its monostatic counterpart to image a point target, samples
on an area can be collected [Fig. 9(a)]. This sampling area
can be considered as the sum of a few rings. Again, the IFT
of the K-space samples is the sum of sinc-shaped functions
focused around the point target and, hence, is a smoother PSF
with lower sidelobes in contrast to the PSF of its monostatic
counterpart.

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 NAGHIBI AND ATTARI: NEAR-FIELD RADAR-BASED MWI FOR BREAST CANCER DETECTION
Fig. 12. 1-D amplitude PSFs of the monostatic square array at (a) two
different frequencies (dotted and dashed lines) versus multiple-frequency
operation (solid line) and (b) single-frequency (dashed line) versus wideband
operation (solid line).
Fig. 13. Point target imaging with a full-view array. (a) and (b) Point target at
the real space, and its Fourier transform. (c) and (d) Ring of K-space samples
and its IFT in the real space. (e) and (f) Area of K-space samples and its IFT
in the real space.
Fig. 13 demonstrates and compares the 2-D PSFs. As shown
in Fig. 13(c) and (d), with a single-frequency monostatic
full-view array, samples on a ring are collected, and the
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1679
IFT of these samples is a sinc-shaped function. With a
single-frequency multistatic, or wideband monostatic, full-
view array, an area of K-space can be sampled and this results
in a smoother function with lower sidelobes and broader main
lobe. Fig. 13(e) and (f) illustrate this effect.
Overall, the most significant impact of multistatic con-
figuration is not to enhance the resolution or to enable
single-frequency imaging but to smooth the PSF of the imag-
ing system. This makes the system less sensitive to clutter
and results in more accurate images, regardless of wideband
or single-frequency operation, far-field, or near-field imaging,
and the array geometry.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this article, we clarified the theoretical relations of
image resolution and quality in two possible array geometry
of MWI systems, namely, limited-view and full-view array.
The former was explained with a linear array and the latter
with a square array that surrounds the target. Both of these
geometries can be used in breast cancer detection. K-space
representation was utilized to support the theory and better
demonstrate the effects of three essential features of imaging
systems, which are monostatic versus multistatic configuration,
single-frequency versus wideband operation, and near-field
versus far-field imaging. PSFs of the imaging systems were
evaluated through 2-D numerical simulations, to both confirm
the theoretical results and also better reveal the effects of
studied factors. It is worthy of note that the term “near-field”
in this study relates to the Fresnel zone, not the reactive near-
field; thus, the results presented here hold true as long as
evanescent waves are insignificant.
We demonstrated that in a limited-view array, near-field
imaging enables us to achieve range resolution in single-
frequency operation and enhances the range resolution in
wideband operation. In contrast, a full-view array allows for
having resolution at both the near-field and far-field, regardless
of its bandwidth.
We also concluded that the resolution limits of multista-
tic and monostatic configurations are the same; however,
a single-frequency multistatic configuration outperforms its
monostatic counterpart, as it can sample an area of K-space
instead of a ring or an arc, and thus it smooths the PSF.
On the other hand, wideband operation has the same effect
of smoothing the PSF. Therefore, a monostatic configuration
must uptake a bandwidth to have a desired PSF with low
SLL and to be comparable with a single-frequency multistatic
array.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Chandra, H. Zhou, I. Balasingham, and R. M. Narayanan, “On
the opportunities and challenges in microwave medical sensing and
imaging,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1667–1683,
Jul. 2015.
[2] A. T. Mobashsher, A. Mahmoud, and A. M. Abbosh, “Portable wide-
band microwave imaging system for intracranial hemorrhage detection
using improved back-projection algorithm with model of effective head
permittivity,” Sci. Rep., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 20459, Apr. 2016.
[3] S. Y. Semenov and D. R. Corfield, “Microwave tomography for brain
imaging: Feasibility assessment for stroke detection,” Int. J. Antennas
Propag., vol. 2008, pp. 1–8, May 2008.
 1680 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 69, NO. 3, MARCH 2021
[4] S. A. Rezaeieh, A. Abbosh, and Y. Wang, “Wideband unidirectional
antenna of folded structure in microwave system for early detection of
congestive heart failure,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 62, no. 10,
pp. 5375–5381, Oct. 2014.
[5] P. M. Meaney et al., “Clinical microwave tomographic imaging of the
calcaneus: A first-in-human case study of two subjects,” IEEE Trans.
Biomed. Eng., vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 3304–3313, Dec. 2012.
[6] E. C. Fear, J. Bourqui, C. Curtis, D. Mew, B. Docktor, and C. Romano,
“Microwave breast imaging with a monostatic radar-based system:
A study of application to patients,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn.,
vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 2119–2128, May 2013.
[7] M. Klemm, I. J. Craddock, J. A. Leendertz, A. Preece, and R. Benjamin,
“Radar-based breast cancer detection using a hemispherical antenna
array—Experimental results,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 57,
no. 6, pp. 1692–1704, Jun. 2009.
[8] S. C. Hagness, A. Taflove, and J. E. Bridges, “Two-dimensional FDTD
analysis of a pulsed microwave confocal system for breast cancer
detection: Fixed-focus and antenna-array sensors,” IEEE Trans. Biomed.
Eng., vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 1470–1479, Dec. 1998.
[9] E. C. Fear, S. C. Hagness, P. M. Meaney, M. Okoniewski, and
M. A. Stuchly, “Enhancing breast tumor detection with near-field
imaging,” IEEE Microw. Mag., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 48–56, Mar. 2002.
[10] N. Nikolova, “Microwave imaging for breast cancer,” IEEE Microw.
Mag., vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 78–94, Dec. 2011.
[11] P. M. Meaney, K. D. Paulsen, A. Hartov, and R. K. Crane,
“An active microwave imaging system for reconstruction of 2-D electri-
cal property distributions,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 42, no. 10,
pp. 1017–1026, Oct. 1995.
[12] R. J. Halter et al., “The correlation of in vivo and ex vivo tissue dielectric
properties to validate electromagnetic breast imaging: Initial clinical
experience,” Physiol. Meas., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. S121–S136, Jun. 2009.
[13] J. Bourqui, J. M. Sill, and E. C. Fear, “A prototype system for measuring
microwave frequency reflections from the breast,” Int. J. Biomed. Imag.,
vol. 2012, pp. 1–12, Apr. 2012.
[14] D. Byrne, M. Sarafianou, and I. J. Craddock, “Compound radar approach
for breast imaging,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 40–51,
Jan. 2017.
[15] A. W. Preece, I. Craddock, M. Shere, L. Jones, and H. L. Winton,
“MARIA M4: Clinical evaluation of a prototype ultrawideband radar
scanner for breast cancer detection,” J. Med. Imag., vol. 3, no. 3,
Jul. 2016, Art. no. 033502.
[16] A. J. Devaney, “Geophysical diffraction tomography,” IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. GE-22, no. 1, pp. 3–13, Jan. 1984.
[17] G. Gennarelli, I. Catapano, F. Soldovieri, and R. Persico, “On the achiev-
able imaging performance in full 3-D linear inverse scattering,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 1150–1155, Mar. 2015.
[18] E. C. Fear and M. A. Stuchly, “Microwave detection of breast cancer,”
IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 1854–1863,
Nov. 2000.
[19] T. Sleasman, M. Boyarsky, M. F. Imani, T. Fromenteze, J. N. Gollub,
and D. R. Smith, “Single-frequency microwave imaging with dynamic
metasurface apertures,” J. Opt. Soc. Amer. B, Opt. Phys., vol. 34, no. 8,
p. 1713, 2017.
[20] A. J. D. Dekker and A. V. D. Bos, “Resolution: A survey,” J. Opt. Soc.
Amer. A, Opt. Image Sci., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 547–557, 1997.
[21] C. Curtis, “Factors affecting image quality in near-field ultra-wideband
radar imaging for biomedical applications,” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Elect.
Comput. Eng., Univ. Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2015.
[22] E. J. Bond, X. Li, S. C. Hagness, and B. D. Van Veen, “Microwave
imaging via space-time beamforming for early detection of breast
cancer,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1690–1705,
Aug. 2003.
[23] E. C. Fear, X. Li, S. C. Hagness, and M. A. Stuchly, “Confocal
microwave imaging for breast cancer detection: Localization of tumors
in three dimensions,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 49, no. 8,
pp. 812–822, Aug. 2002.
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ROORKEE. Downloaded on September 12,2021 at 09:06:52 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[24] W. Zhi and F. Chin, “Entropy-based time window for artifact removal in
UWB imaging of breast cancer detection,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett.,
vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 585–588, Oct. 2006.
[25] Y. Chen, E. Gunawan, K. S. Low, S.-C. Wang, Y. Kim, and C. B. Soh,
“Pulse design for time reversal method as applied to ultrawideband
microwave breast cancer detection: A two-dimensional analysis,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 194–204, Jan. 2007.
[26] W. Zhang and A. Hoorfar, “Two-dimensional through-the-wall radar
imaging with diffraction tomographic algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Microw. Technol. Comput. Electromagn., May 2011, pp. 96–99.
[27] J. F. Clodfelter and M. W. Hibbard, “Leading and lagging aper-
ture for linear ground penetrating radar array,” U.S. Patent 8 040 272,
Oct. 18, 2011.
[28] S. S. A. Ahmed, “Electronic microwave imaging with planar multi-
static arrays,” Doctoral Degree, Fac. Eng., Friedrich-Alexander Univ.,
Erlangen, Germany, 2013.
[29] M. Klemm, J. A. Leendertz, D. Gibbins, I. J. Craddock, A. Preece, and
R. Benjamin, “Microwave radar-based differential breast cancer imaging:
Imaging in homogeneous breast phantoms and low contrast scenarios,”
IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 2337–2344, Jul. 2010.
[30] A. Naghibi, M. S. Hoseini-Rad, V. Khorashadi-Zadeh, and A. R. Attari,
“Skin artifact removal algorithms for radar-based microwave breast
cancer detection,” presented at the 26th Iranian Conf. Elect. Eng. (ICEE),
2018.
[31] M. Yousefnia, A. Ebrahimzadeh, M. Dehmollaian, and A. Madannejad,
“A time-reversal imaging system for breast screening: Theory and
initial phantom results,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 65, no. 11,
pp. 2542–2551, Nov. 2018.
[32] R. Solimene, A. Cuccaro, G. Ruvio, D. F. Tapia, and M. O’Halloran,
“Beamforming and holography image formation methods: An analytic
study,” Opt. Express, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 9077–9093, 2016.
[33] M. Lazebnik et al., “A large-scale study of the ultrawideband microwave
dielectric properties of normal breast tissue obtained from reduction
surgeries,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 52, no. 10, p. 2637, 2007.
[34] M. Pastorino, Microwave Imaging. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2010.
Atefeh Naghibi received the B.Sc. and M.Sc.
degrees in electrical engineering from the Ferdowsi
University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, in 2012 and
2015, respectively, where she is currently pursuing
the Ph.D. degree.
Her current research interests include microwave
imaging and transformation electromagnetics.
Amir Reza Attari was born in Mashhad, Iran,
in 1971. He received the B.S. and M.S. degrees
in electrical engineering from the Sharif University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 1994 and 1996,
respectively, and the joint Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering from the Sharif University of Tech-
nology, and University Joseph Fourier, Grenoble,
France, in 2002.
In 2004, he joined the Department of Electri-
cal Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad,
Mashhad, Iran, where he is currently a Professor.
His research interests are antennas, passive microwave devices, and microwave
imaging.