2020 17th International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD'20)

Evaluation of a novel ultrasound imaging methods

for high frame rate echocardiography
Wided Hechkel Brahim Maaref Néjib Hassen
Laboratory uEI Laboratory EuE Laboratory uEI
University of Monastir University of Monastir University of Monastir
Monastir, Tunisia Monastir, Tunisia Monastir, Tunisia
wided.hechkel@isimm.u-monastir.tn brahim.maaref@isimm.rnu.tn nejib.hassen@fsm.rnu.tn

Abstract—In this paper, we evaluate two new methods of with such a system is the product of the pattern of the
ultrasound imaging that could be used in cardiac imaging. These transmitted beam with the receive pattern of each formed
methods are Parallel Divergent Waves in the same direction and beam.
Parallel Divergent Waves in different directions. We compare
these methods with Consecutive Divergent Waves in different
2020 17th International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD) | 978-1-7281-1080-6/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/SSD49366.2020.9364257

directions using a compounding option. The goal of our work is

to increase the frame rate of the ultrasound system. Simulation
results prove that image quality for parallel emissions could be
at the same level as consecutive emissions but without estimating
interference, crosstalk and cross-correlation between signals.

Keywords—divergent wave, ultrasound, echocardiography,

frame rate, simultaneous emissions

I. INTRODUCTION
The most demanding requirement of pulse-echo ultrasonic
imaging such as echocardiography can be identified as frame
rate, In the classical sequential-data acquisition scheme, the
frame rate is limited by the imaging depth range and the
number of ultrasonic fires [1][2][3]. A current trend is an
increase in this number to push towards higher imaging
resolution. for example, for a classical 10 cm imaging range,
the relatively slow speed of sound in soft tissue (1540 m/s)
limits pulse-echo ultrasound to a pulse repetition frequency
or about 7700 transmit pulses per second in order to avoid
interferences between successive pulses. In conventional
high-speed B-mode scan imaging, the 7700 transmitted
pulses are typically allocated to about 100 scan lines, giving
rise to a maximal frame rate of 77 frames per second
[4][5][6]. Most of the time, this comfortable frame rate is
reduced at the benefit of resolution: an increased number of
imaging lines and several ultrasonic fires per line (i.e. several
transmit foci) [7][8][9]. Several techniques have been
proposed to increase the imaging rate. In the first category of
techniques, the sequential acquisition scheme is retained: the
pulse repetition frequency is optimized through the
minimization of the imaging range with the use of
endoprobes. These techniques are rather interesting in the
sense that they give rise to very high resolution and high
frame rate at the same time. however, they concern a small
number of organs (e.g. heart, Prostata. ...) and they are less
flexible than peripheral exams. In the second category of'
techniques, a parallel acquisition scheme is introduced
[10][11]. Its principle is rather simple and was recognized
early in phased array imaging. A rather wide illumination
beam is transmitted using multiple pulse generators (figure
1.a). Upon reception, several beams can be synthesized
simultaneously, using the same array data, by applying a
different time delay law for each independent beam. As it is
apparent in figure 1.b, this technique requires rather complex
hardware to simultaneously handle the formation of several
beams. The pulse-echo beam pattern of each beam produced
Fig. 1. The simultaneous synthesis of several transmit/receive events (here
3) requires an independent delay and sum structure for each beam
II. METHODS
A. Experimental setup
A 32-element, 3.5-MHz 1-D phased-array transducer
transmitting a Gaussian pulse with a bandwidth of 50% was
simulated in this study. The transducer measured 5 mm in
height and 7.7 mm in width, with a pitch of 0.242 mm and
with a kerf of 0.022 mm. The two-way beam profiles of the
following systems were simulated: 1) 64MLA using several
parallels transmit diverging-wave imaging with a virtual
focal depth of 100 mm with different directions 2) 64MLA
using several parallels transmit diverging-wave imaging with
a virtual focal depth of 100 mm at the same direction ;3)
64MLA using several parallels transmit diverging-wave
imaging with a virtual focal depth of 100 mm with different
directions with spatial compounding. The implementation
details of these beamforming strategies are given in Table I.
For the beam profile at a particular steering angle, the field of
view was set to different azimuth directions relatively to each
divergent beam (Figure 2). For all the imaging systems
investigated, dynamic focusing was employed to receive
using the full aperture and Hamming apodization was used to
receive to suppress the side lobes.

978-1-7281-1080-6/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE 185

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Calif Santa Barbara. Downloaded on May 16,2021 at 17:07:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
  Signal to Noise Ratio: The SNR as a function of
depth, z, can be determined as the ratio of the signal
TABLE I. Configuration parameters of the simulations power, S, to the noise power, N [13]:
Parameter Symbol Value
SNR (z) = = (1)
-
Speed of sound in tissue c 1540 m/s
where E is the expectation operator, and x is the
Transducer center f0 4 MHz
frequency signal radiofrequency (RF) value.
Transducer bandwidth B 4 MHz In this article, the signal power will be estimated
Wavelength λ 0.385mm from M measurements as:
Sampling frequency fs 20 MHz S(z) = ∑ (2)
Transducer array size N 32 and the noise power will be estimated as: N(z) =
(2D) elements
Element directivity in 0.707 rad ∑ ∑ (3)
the1D Array probe
(acceptance angle) SNR expressed in dB is calculated in accordance
with
SNRdB(z) = 10 * log10(SNR(z)) (4)
 Contrast Per Pixel (CPP): CPP is an estimation of
the average intensity difference between a pixel and
its adjacent pixel. The CPP of an image is defined to
be [14]:
∑ ∑ ∑ , | , , |
,
(5)

Here, f(i,j) is the gray value of pixel (i,j), and f(m,n)

Fig. 2. Different azimuth directions relatively to each divergent beam
B. Software Ultrasound Simulator
Numerical simulations (in Field II simulation Program) of
ultrasound imaging were performed first in order to test
various configurations and appropriately choose the best ones
for the final ultrasound probe design. The possible
configurations of the ultrasound probe were tested and the
image quality analyzed. The media whose images have been
simulated included is Point Spread Function (PSF).
C. Image Quality Metrics for PSF and PSFs
High image quality is a critical purpose for the building
of a good ultrasound imager. Consequently, accurate analysis
depends heavily on the reconstructed output image quality.
The most important metric to evaluate the spatial resolution
is Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM). In this work, we
use a new evaluation metric [12], Full Width at Half Dynamic
Range (FWHDR). The motivation of choosing a metric
related to dynamic range (DR) is the fact that the image
resolution drops in high DR levels and it becomes difficult to
differentiate between closely placed scatterers.
D. Cyst Phantom Evaluation Metrics
Metrics used to evaluate the quality of the Cyst Phantoms
(CP) are:
is the gray value of neighboring pixel (i, j) in the
image.
 Contrast to Noise Ratio (CNR): CNR is defined as
the logarithmic difference between the mean values
of the image kernels fully within and outside the
cysts and is expressed as [15]:
CNR = (6)
where μ denotes the mean and σ denotes the
standard deviation of the log-compressed B-mode
image. The subscripts T and B stand for the target
and the background, respectively.
III. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
A. Point Spread Functions Results
As you can see from figure 3(b), we used ten PSFs in our
synthetic phantom, simulation results for one divergent wave
are seen in figure 3(a). Figure 4 shows simulation results for
the three algorithms, PDW-SD, PDW-DD, and CDW-DD-C.
Results are reobtained for consecutively three, five, seven,
nine, eleven and thirteen divergent waves.
Table 2 shows the Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) in
millimeter (mm) for lateral resolution for each algorithm.

186

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Calif Santa Barbara. Downloaded on May 16,2021 at 17:07:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Here we observe that PDW-SD shows the same value for all hence, for every transmit/receive (tr/rc) event, (10*10-2/1540)
simulations (0.0217 mm). Here, all insonifications are at the second is taken, so, 6.5 is taken. Hence, if we construct
same direction, so, the FWHM cannot well evaluate the one image every one tr/rc event, the frame rate was 7700 Hz
spatial resolution of the image, because, it gives at all (frame/second). So, by the same logic, we obtained the results
simulations the same values, because, the implementation of table 5, were div 1 has 7700 Hz for all techniques, also
logic of the algorithms obliges us to sum the response of each parallel transmissions have the same value (7700 Hz) and
transmitted wave and to superimpose the results. finally, for consecutive transmissions, the frame rate decrease
Also, we observe from the same table that PDW-DD and with the increase of the number of transmitted divergent
CDW-DD-C have the same values for each simulation, this waves.
is due because the compounding option used in CDW-DD-C
is the average between all the received responses of each
insonification, and parallel transmissions in PDW-DD were
treated as consecutive transmissions, the case with CDW-
DD-C because of simulator constraints. The best values here
are highlighted in the table, div 3 with 0.0145 mm, div 5 with
0.0238 mm and div 9 with 0.0558 mm.
Table 3 shows the Full Width at Half Dynamic Range
(FWHDR) in millimeter (mm) for lateral resolution for each
algorithm. We observe also the same remarques as FWHM.
PDW-SD has 0.1695 mm, best values for PDW-DD AND
CDW-DD-C are 0.1462 mm for 3 did; 0.1567 mm for 5 div
and 0.1681 for 7 div.
Table 4 shows the execution time for each algorithm.
Certainly, the minimum values are obtained with algorithms Fig. 3. (a) Simulation result for one divergent Beam (b) Synthetic phantom
that have a smaller number of insonifications. So, the final containing ten PSFs
image for 1 div algorithm is taken after about 35 seconds; div
3 for PDW-SD, PDW-DD, and CDW-DD-C are taken
consecutively after 71, 103 and 70 seconds.
Table 5 shows the frame rate for each algorithm, here the
frame rate was obtained standing to the equation above,

Fig. 4. Point Spread Functions Simulations Results for consecutively (a) three (b) five (c) seven (d) nine (e) eleven (f) thirteen divergent waves, if option 1:
CDW-DD-C else if 2 PDW-DD else if 3 PDW-SD.

187

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Calif Santa Barbara. Downloaded on May 16,2021 at 17:07:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE II. FULL-WIDTH HALF MAXIMUM (LATERAL RESOLUTION) OF THE SIMULATIONS (MM)

Algorithm PDW-SD PDW-DD CDW-DD-C

DIV 1 0.0217
DIV 3 0.0217 0.0145 0.0145
DIV 5 0.0217 0.0238 0.0238
DIV 7 0.0217 0.0573 0.0573
DIV 9 0.0217 0.0558 0.0558
DIV 11 0.0217 0.0639 0.0639
DIV 13 0.0217 0.0634 0.0634

TABLE III. FULL-WIDTH HALF DYNAMIC RANGE (LATERAL RESOLUTION) OF THE SIMULATIONS (MM)

Algorithm PDW-SD PDW-DD CDW-DD-C

DIV 1 0.1695
DIV 3 0.1695 0.1462 0.1462
DIV 5 0.1695 0.1567 0.1567
DIV 7 0.1695 0.1681 0.1681
DIV 9 0.1695 0.1705 0.1705
DIV 11 0.1695 0.1723 0.1723
DIV 13 0.1695 0.1718 0.1718

TABLE IV. EXECUTION TIME OF THE SIMULATIONS (SECOND)

Algorithm PDW-SD PDW-DD CDW-DD-C

DIV 1 35.023
DIV 3 71.585 103.636 70.703
DIV 5 112.892 131.488 108.204
DIV 7 145.771 168.676 144.430
DIV 9 184.806 207.785 190.414
DIV 11 230.118 245.752 218.986
DIV 13 272.175 279.245 262.512

TABLE V. FRAME RATE OF THE SIMULATIONS (HZ)

Algorithm PDW-SD PDW-DD CDW-DD-C

DIV 1 7700

DIV 3 2567

DIV 5 1540

DIV 7 1100
7700
DIV 9 856

DIV 11 700

DIV 13 592

188

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Calif Santa Barbara. Downloaded on May 16,2021 at 17:07:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
B. Cyst Phantom Results
Figure 5 shows the B-mode cyst phantom images for
CDW-DD-C, PDW-DD and PDW-SD techniques. The
results are obtained consecutively for three, five, seven, nine,
eleven and thirteen divergent waves. Table 6 demonstrates
further performance evaluation for each algorithm with the
calculation of the parameters that describe the image options.
For SNR and PSNR we take 13 div of each algorithm as a
reference to the other simulations of the same algorithm.
Hence, for CDW-DD-C, the best SNR value is 9.54 dB for 5
div. Also, for PDW-DD, the best SNR value is 23.41 dB for
11 div. Further, for PDW-SD, the best SNR value is 21.15 dB
for 11 div also.
By the same sense, PSNR best values are -35.80 dB, -28.09
dB and -28.28 dB for consecutively CDW-DD-C / 5div
PDW-DD / 9div and PDW-SD / 3div.
The logic for CNR and CPP calculations is to evaluate all
the images by the same level without using a reference image.
So, the three best values are highlighted in table 6. For CNR,
they are 30.68 dB, 32.43 dB and 32.54 dB for consecutively
PDW-SD / 13div PDW-SD / 11div and PDW-SD / 5div. For
CPP, they are 19.98, 19.96 and 19.97 for consecutively PDW-
DD / 9div, PDW-SD / 11div and PDW-SD / 5div.

Fig. 5. Cyst Phantom B-mode Simulations Results for consecutively (a) three (b) five (c) seven (d) nine (e) eleven (f) thirteen divergent waves, if option 1:
CDW-DD-C else if 2 PDW-DD else if 3 PDW-SD.

TABLE VI. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION METRICS FOR CYST PHANTOM B-MODE SIMULATIONS

Performance metrics of Cyst Phantom

Algorithms
SNR (dB) PSNR (dB) CNR CPP
(dB)
CDW-DD-C / 13div Reference Reference 29.26 17.78
CDW-DD-C / 11div 9.17 -35.48 29.34 19.91
CDW-DD-C / 9div 9.39 -35.25 29.00 19.73
CDW-DD-C / 7div 9.15 -35.50 29.41 19.94
CDW-DD-C / 5div 9.54 -35.80 28.26 17.58
CDW-DD-C / 3div 9.16 -35.49 29.09 19.95
PDW-DD / 13div Reference Reference 29.69 19.77
PDW-DD / 11div 23.41 -21.89 29.96 19.74
PDW-DD / 9div 17.21 -28.09 28.37 19.98
PDW-DD / 7div 17.39 -27.91 28.31 19.93
PDW-DD / 5div 17.36 -27.94 29.77 19.95
PDW-DD / 3div 17.24 -28.06 29.33 19.86
PDW-SD / 13div Reference Reference 30.68 19.84
PDW-SD / 11div 21.15 -24.19 32.43 19.96
PDW-SD / 9div 19.71 -24.94 24.63 17.44
PDW-SD / 7div 21.56 -23.78 30.42 19.78

189

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Calif Santa Barbara. Downloaded on May 16,2021 at 17:07:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 PDW-SD / 5div
PDW-SD / 3div
IV. DISCUSSION
Simulation results prove that FWHM and FWHDR of the
parallel divergent waves in the same direction algorithm are
the same as only one divergent wave, and this is caused by
the superposition of the beamformed rf_data without the
estimation of the interference in the image. FWHM and
FWHDR of the parallel divergent waves at different direction
algorithms and the consecutive divergent waves at different
directions with compounding algorithms are also the same
and this is because the compound option that we used is the
average between the different received beamformed echoes.
Also, in this case, we cannot say that these results perfectly
estimate the difference between algorithm because the
simulator cannot estimate crosstalk and cross-correlation
between the simultaneous firings in the case of parallel waves
at different directions. For the execution time, we clearly
remark that it increases with the increase of the number of
waves. In the case of the frame rate, we can easily prove that
one divergent wave and simultaneous divergent waves have
the same frame rate, but the frame rate decrease if the number
of the waves increases in case of consecutive insonifications.
Cyst phantom simulation proves that PDW-SD /11 div has at
many times the best performance metrics, so it could be the
best algorithm for later improvements and implementation.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we simulated two new ultrasound algorithms
for B-mode phased array echocardiography in order to
evaluate the performance of these algorithms in comparison
with conventional imaging algorithm that uses consecutive
diverging wave and compounding. Image quality metrics help
us to define the quality of the image for each algorithm and
execution time is the best index that qualifies the
computational complexity of the algorithms. Also, the frame
rate for the different techniques helps us to more distinguish
the reliability of each of them. But simulation results don’t
estimate many options in the image like interference, cross
talk, and cross-correlation. Thus, in the next steps, we will
implement these approaches in our digital beamforming
ultrasound system and evaluate them in a real system.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Bercoff, “Ultrafast ultrasound imaging,” in Ultrasound Imaging,
Medical Applications, O. Minin, Ed. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, 2011, pp.
3–24.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ of Calif Santa Barbara. Downloaded on May 16,2021 at 17:07:26 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
20.91 -24.43 32.54 19.97
17.06 -28.28 29.85 19.59
[2] M. Couade, M. Pernot, M. Tanter, E. Messas, A. Bel, M. Ba, A.-A.
Hagege, and M. Fink, “Ultrafast imaging of the heart using circular
wave synthetic imaging with phased arrays,” in IEEE International
Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), IEEE International, 2009, pp. 515–518.
[3] L. Tong, H. Gao, H. F. Choi, and J. D’hooge, “Comparison of
conventional parallel beamforming with plane wave and diverging
wave imaging for cardiac applications: a simulation study,” IEEE
Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control, vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 1654–
1663, Aug. 2012.
[4] L. Tong, H. Gao, and J. D’hooge, “Multi-transmit beam forming for
fast cardiac imaging-a simulation study,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason.
Ferroelectr. Freq. Control, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 1719– 1731, Aug. 2013.
[5] L. Petrusca, F. Varray, R. Souchon, A. Bernard, J.-Y. Chapelon, H.
Liebgott, W. A. NDjin, and M. Viallon, “Fast volumetric ultrasound b-
mode and doppler imaging with a new high-channels density platform
for advanced 4d cardiac imaging/therapy,” Applied Sciences, vol. 8,
no. 2, 2018.
[6] M. Correia, J. Provost, S. Chatelin, O. Villemain, M. Tanter, and M.
Pernot, “Ultrafast harmonic coherent compound (uhcc) imaging for
high frame rate echocardiography and shear-wave elastography,” IEEE
Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control,
vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 420–431, 2016.M. Young, The Technical Writer’s
Handbook. Mill Valley, CA: University Science, 1989.
[7] E. Bădescu, “High-frame rate ultrasound methodologies for cardiac
applications”. Medical Imaging. Université de Lyon, 2018. Thesis
144p.
[8] H. Hasegawa, H. Kanai, “High-frame-rate echocardiography using
diverging transmit beams and parallel receive beamforming” J. Med.
Ultrason. Jul.2011 38:129–140.
[9] R. Mallart and M. Fink, “Improved imaging rate through simultaneous
transmission of several ultrasound beams,” 1992, pp. 120–130.
[10] E. Tiran, T. Deffieux, M. Correia, D. Maresca, B.-F. Osmanski, L.-A.
Sieu, A. Bergel, I. Cohen, M. Pernot, and M. Tanter, “Multiplane wave
imaging increases signal-to-noise ratio in ultrafast ultrasound
imaging,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 60, no. 21, pp. 8549–
8566, 2015.
[11] M. Tanter and M. Fink, "Ultrafast imaging in biomedical ultrasound",
IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control.
Vol. 61(1), pp. 102-119. 2014.
[12] S. Harput, J. McLaughlan, D. M. Cowell, and S. Freear, “New
performance metrics for ultrasound pulse compression systems,” in
IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), 2014, pp. 440–443.
[13] V. Papic, Z. Djurovic, G. Kvascev, P. Tadic, “On signal-to-noise ratio
estimation.” In Proceedings of the Malecon 2010—2010 15th IEEE
Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference IEEE, Valletta, Malta,25–
28 April 2010, Volume 5, pp. 160–165.
[14] M. Eramian, D.Mould, ” Histogram equalization using neighborhood
metric.” Proceedings of the Second Canadian Conference on Computer
and Robot Vision; 2005 May 9–11; Victoria, BC, Canada. Washington:
IEEE Computer Society; 2005.
[15] M. Welvaert, Y. Rosseel, “On the definition of signal-to-noise ratio and
contrast-to-noise ratio for fMRI data.” PLoS One. 2013, 8: e77089.
190