JUM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, T.
Right arrow Articles by Li, Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wilson, T.
Right arrow Articles by Li, Y.
© 2002 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine
J Ultrasound Med 21:937-945 • 0278-4297

A Test Phantom for Estimating Changes in the Effective Frequency of an Ultrasonic Scanner

Thaddeus Wilson, PhD, James Zagzebski, PhD and Yadong Li, PhD

Department of Radiology, University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee (T.W.); and University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin (J.Z., Y.L.).

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Thaddeus Wilson, PhD, Department of Radiology, University of Tennessee, Chandler Building, 865 Jefferson Ave, Memphis, TN 38163.

Objective. Ultrasonic frequency is an important performance feature of B-mode scanners. It is particularly relevant when comparing instruments from different manufacturers and reporting clinical results. We investigated a test phantom to independently measure an effective imaging frequency, including effects of depth-dependent attenuation and frequency filtering during echo reception. Methods. The approach capitalizes on variations of the frequency dependence of backscatter with scatterer size. A tissue-mimicking phantom containing 48-µm-diameter scatterers was constructed. Embedded at depths of 1, 3, 7, and 9 cm were sets of cylindrical inclusions, each containing tissue-mimicking material with a different scatterer size and number density. Computer simulations helped establish scatterer parameters for the cylinder bodies that resulted in image contrast versus the background that varied with frequency, with each cylinder transitioning from negative to positive contrast at a different frequency. Acoustic properties of the phantom were verified by a laboratory apparatus. Initial tests of the effectiveness of the phantom were done by imaging with several scanners using various frequency and imaging settings on transducers. Results. Images were obtained with 2 clinical scanners in which modest changes in the image acquisition parameters were adjusted. Image contrast between test cylinders and background corresponded to operating frequency with a multihertz transducer. Changes in observable contrast consistent with a shift in operating frequency were not always accompanied by visual indicators that such changes in the scanning protocol had occurred. Conclusions. The test phantom performs as predicted by computer simulations and theoretical calculations of backscatter versus frequency. Contrast on images of the test phantom produced by clinical systems correlates with scanner frequency settings, showing feasibility. Relative shifts in effective frequency and operating bandwidth can be assessed from these contrast differences between settings with this test phantom.

Abbreviations: BSC, backscatter coefficient • IBC, integrated backscatter coefficient • IBSI, integrated backscatter signal intensity • pen, penetration • res, resolution

Key Words: acoustic backscatter coefficient • effective frequency • frequency-dependent backscatter • quality assurance • quantitative imaging • ultrasonographic tissue characterization




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
T. Wilson, Q. Chen, J. A. Zagzebski, T. Varghese, and L. VanMiddlesworth
Initial clinical experience imaging scatterer size and strain in thyroid nodules.
J. Ultrasound Med., August 1, 2006; 25(8): 1021 - 1029.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.