Single-image Bayesian Restoration and Multi-image Super-resolution Restoration for B-mode Ultrasound Using an Accurate System Model Involving Correlated Nature of the Speckle Noise
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2019
Single-image Bayesian Restoration and Multi-image Super-resolution Restoration for B-mode Ultrasound Using an Accurate System Model Involving Correlated Nature of the Speckle Noise
B-mode ultrasound is an essential part of radiological examinations due to its low cost, safety, and portability, but has the drawbacks of the speckle noise and output of most systems is two-dimensional (2D) cross sections. Image restoration techniques, using mathematical models for image degradation and noise, can be used to boost resolution (deconvolution) as well as to reduce the speckle. In this study, new single-image Bayesian restoration (BR) and multi-image super-resolution restoration (BSRR) methods are proposed for in-plane B-mode ultrasound images. The spatially correlated nature of the speckle was modeled, allowing for examination of two different models for BR and BSRR for uncorrelated Gaussian (BR-UG, BSRR-UG) and correlated Gaussian (BR-CG, BSRR-CG). The performances of these models were compared with common image restoration methods (Wiener filter, bilateral filtering, and anisotropic diffusion). Well-recognized metrics (peak signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio, and normalized information density) were used for algorithm free-parameter estimation and objective evaluations. The methods were tested using superficial tissue (2D scan data collected from volunteers, tissue-mimicking resolutions, and breast phantoms). Improvement in image quality was assessed by experts using visual grading analysis. In general, BSRR-CG performed better than all other methods. A potential downside of BSRR-CG is increased computation time, which can be addressed by the use of high-performance graphics processing units (GPUs).
WagnerRFSmithSWSandrikJMHectorL.Statistics of speckle in ultrasound b-scans. IEEE Trans Sonics Ultrason. 1983;30:156-63.
3.
TuthillTASperryRHParkerKJ.Deviations from Rayleigh statistics in ultrasonic speckle. Ultrason Imaging. 1988;10:81-89.
4.
NakagamiN.The m-distribution, a general formula for intensity distribution of rapid fadings. In: HollmanWG, ed. Statistical Methods in Radio Wave Propagation. Oxford, UK: Pergamon; 1960. pp. 3-36.
5.
EltoftT.The Rician inverse Gaussian distribution: a new model for non-Rayleigh signal amplitude statistics. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2005;14:1722-35.
6.
PeronaPMalikJ.Scale-space and edge detection using anisotropic diffusion. Proc IEEE Comp Soc Worksh Comp Vis. 1990;12(7):629-39.
7.
YuYActonST.Speckle reducing anisotropic diffusion. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2002;11(11):1260-70.
8.
Aja-FernandezSAlberola-LopezC.On the estimation of the coefficient of variation for anisotropic diffusion speckle Filtering. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2006;15(9):694-701.
9.
LeeJS.Digital image enhancement and noise filtering by use of local statistics. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1980;2:165-68.
10.
KuanDSawchuckAStrandTChavelP.Adaptive noise smoothing filter for images with signal-dependent noise. Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1985;7(2):165-77.
11.
KaramanMKutayMABozdagiG.An adaptive speckle suppression filter for medical ultrasonic imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imag. 1995;14(2):283-92.
12.
WienerN.Extrapolation, Interpolation and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series. New York: Wiley; 1949.
13.
BaseliceFFerraioliGAmbrosanioMPascazioVSchirinziG.Enhanced Wiener filter for ultrasound image restoration. Comput Meth Prog Bio. 2018;153:71-81.
14.
TomasiCManduchiR.Bilateral filtering for gray and color images. Proc IEEE Int Conf Comp Vis. 1998;836-846. doi:10.1109/ICCV.1998.710815.
15.
CoupePHellierPKervrannCBarillotC.Nonlocal means-based speckle filtering for ultrasound images. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2009;18(10):2221-29.
16.
BaseliceFFerraioliGJohnsyACPascazioVSchirinziG. A Bayesian method for speckle reduction in single-look SAR images. IEEE Int Sym on Geosci and Remote Sens. 2015:26-31.
17.
BaseliceFFerraioliGJohnsyACPascazioVSchirinziG.Speckle reduction based on Wiener filter in ultrasound images. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol So. 2015;2015:3065-68.
18.
GonzalezRCWoodsRE.Digital Image Processing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2001
19.
CampisiPEgiazarianK.Blind Image Deconvolution: theory and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007.
20.
TaxtT.Three-dimensional blind deconvolution of ultrasound images. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelect Freq Control. 2001;48(4):867-71.
21.
MichailovichOAdamD.Phase unwrapping for 2-D blind deconvolution of ultrasound images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004;23(1):7-25.
22.
BlumeMZikicDWeinWNavabN.A new and general method for blind shift-variant deconvolution of biomedical images. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv. 2007;10:743-50.
23.
NgJPragerRKingsburyNTreeceGGeeA.Wavelet restoration of medical pulse-echo ultrasound images in an EM framework. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2007;54(3):550-68.
24.
NgJPragerRKingsburyNTreeceGGeeA.Modeling ultrasound imaging as a linear, shift-variant system. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2006;53(3):549-63.
25.
ParkerKJ.Superresolution imaging of scatterers in ultrasound B-scan imaging. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;131(6):4680-89.
26.
ChenSParkerKJ.Enhanced resolution pulse-echo imaging with stabilized pulses. J Med Imaging. 2016;3(2):027003. doi:10.1117/1.JMI.3.2.027003.
27.
ChenSParkerKJ.Enhanced axial and lateral resolution using stabilized pulses. J Med Imaging. 2017;4(2):027001. doi:10.1117/1.JMI.4.2.027001.
28.
AysalTCBarnerKE.Rayleigh-maximum-likelihood filtering for speckle reduction of ultrasound images. IEEE Trans Med Imag. 2007;26(5):712-27.
29.
EladMFeuerA.Restoration of a single superresolution image from several blurred, noisy, and undersampled measured images. IEEE Trans Image Process. 1997;6(12):1646-58.
30.
O’ReillyMAHynynenK.A super-resolution ultrasound method for brain vascular mapping. Med Phys. 2013;40:110701.
31.
MorinRBasarabABidonSKouaméD.Motion estimation-based image enhancement in ultrasound imaging. Ultrasonics. 2015;60:19-26.
32.
WangBCaoTDaiYLiuDC.Ultrasound speckle reduction via super resolution and nonlinear diffusion. In: ZhaHTaniguchiR.MaybankS, eds. Computer Vision—ACCV 2009. ACCV 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer; 2010, vol. 5596, pp. 130-39.
33.
DaiYWangBLiuDC.A fast and robust super resolution method for intima reconstruction in medical ultrasound. In: 3rd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering, Beijing, China, 11-13 June 2009, pp. 1-4. IEEE.
34.
WuMJKarlsJDuenwald-KuehlSVanderbyRJrSetharesW.Spatial and frequency-based super-resolution of ultrasound images. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin Imaging Vis. 2014;2:146-56.
35.
YangZTuthillTARaunigDLFoxMDAnalouiM.Pixel compounding: resolution-enhanced ultrasound imaging for quantitative analysis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007;33:1309-19.
36.
YangZSinhaSPBooiRCRoubidouxMAMaBFowlkesJB, et al. Breast ultrasound image improvement by pixel compounding of compression sequence. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2009;56:465-473.
37.
ZometARav-AchaAPelegS.Robust super-resolution. Proc Int Conf CVPR. 2001;1:645-50.
38.
PhamTQVan VlietLJSchutteK. Robust fusion of irregularly sampled data using adaptive normalized convolution. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process. 2006:1-12.
39.
TsuzurugiJOkadaM.Bayesian image restoration under spatially correlated noise-statistical-mechanical approach. Proc Int Conf Neural Inform Process. 2002;5:2419-23.
40.
TilleySSiewerdsenJHStaymanJW.Model-based iterative reconstruction for flat-panel cone-beam ct with focal spot blur, detector blur, and correlated noise. Phys Med Biol. 2015;61:296-319.
41.
ZhengJFesslerJAChanHP.Detector blur and correlated noise modeling for digital breast tomosynthesis reconstruction. IEEE Trans Med Imag. 2018;37(1):116-27.
42.
MånssonLG.Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2000;90:89-99.
43.
BåthMMånssonLG.Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:169-176.
44.
JensenJAMathorneJGravesenTStageB.Deconvolution of in-vivo ultrasound b-mode images. Ultrason Imaging. 1993;15:122-33.
45.
ChenJFFowlkesJBCarsonPLRubinJM.Determination of scan-plane motion using speckle decorrelation: theoretical considerations and initial test. Int J Imaging Syst Technol. 1997;8:38-44.
46.
GeeAHJames HousdenRHassenpflugPTreeceGMPragerRW.Sensorless freehand 3D ultrasound in real tissue: speckle decorrelation without fully developed speckle. Med Image Anal. 2006;10:137-149.
47.
JensenJA.Field: a program for simulating ultrasound systems. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1996;34(Suppl. 1):351-53.
48.
JensenJASvendsenNB.Calculation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 1992;39:262-267.
49.
ThirionJP.Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell’s demons. Med Image Anal. 1998;2(3):243-60.
50.
ÜstünerKFHolleyGL.Ultrasound imaging system performance assessment. AAPM Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, August 2003.
ŞenerEMumcuogluEÜHamcanS.Bayesian segmentation of human facial tissue using 3D MR-CT information fusion, resolution enhancement and partial volume modelling. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2016;124:31-44.
