A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Ultrasonic Synthetic-Aperture Interface Imaging. | LitMetric

Synthetic-aperture (SA) imaging is a popular method to visualize the reflectivity of an object from ultrasonic reflections. The method yields an image of the (volume) contrast in acoustic impedance with respect to the embedding. Typically, constant mass density is assumed in the underlying derivation. Due to the band-limited nature of the recorded data, the image is blurred in space, which is quantified by the associated point spread function. SA volume imaging is valid under the Born approximation, where it is assumed that the contrast is weak. When objects are large with respect to the wavelength, it is questionable whether SA volume imaging should be the method-of-choice. Herein, we propose an alternative solution that we refer to as SA interface imaging. This approach yields a vector image of the discontinuities of acoustic impedance at the tissue interfaces. Constant wave speed is assumed in the underlying derivation. The image is blurred in space by a tensor, which we refer to as the interface spread function. SA interface imaging is valid under the Kirchhoff approximation, where it is assumed that the wavelength is small compared to the spatial dimensions of the interfaces. We compare the performance of volume and interface imaging on synthetic data and on experimental data of a gelatin cylinder with a radius of 75 wavelengths, submerged in water. As expected, the interface image peaks at the gelatin-water interface, while the volume image exposes a peak and trough on opposing sides of the interface.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2019.2903452DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

interface imaging
16
interface
8
acoustic impedance
8
assumed underlying
8
underlying derivation
8
image blurred
8
blurred space
8
spread function
8
volume imaging
8
imaging valid
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!