arxiv: 2604.22457 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph

Recognition: unknown

Cross Fusion and Correlation Beamformer for Row-Column Array Based 3D Ultrasound Imaging

Qiandong Sun , Rui He , Shilin Hou , Jiyan Dai , Kailiang Xu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 08:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph

keywords row-column array3D ultrasoundbeamformersidelobe reductionultrafast imagingcontrast enhancementin vivo

0 comments

The pith

A cross fusion and correlation beamformer suppresses sidelobes and boosts contrast in row-column 3D ultrasound.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents the cross fusion and correlation (CFAC) method to address severe sidelobe artifacts and low SNR in row-column addressed transducer based 3D ultrasound imaging. RCA transducers allow ultrafast volumetric imaging with reduced channels but suffer from weak focusing. CFAC uses the incoherence of sidelobes and noise across orthogonal apertures and multiple steering angle sets to fuse and correlate the data for suppression. Simulations show up to 42 dB sidelobe reduction, phantom experiments up to 17.5 dB CNR improvement, and in vivo rat kidney imaging over 25 dB CNR gain with better microvascular detail.

Core claim

By fusing and correlating signals from orthogonal apertures and various steering angles, the CFAC beamformer suppresses incoherent sidelobe artifacts and noise in RCA-based ultrafast 3D ultrasound, achieving superior contrast without sacrificing frame rate.

What carries the argument

Cross fusion and correlation (CFAC) beamformer that exploits incoherence across orthogonal aperture datasets and steering angle sets.

Load-bearing premise

Sidelobe artifacts and noise remain sufficiently incoherent across orthogonal aperture datasets and multiple steering angle sets, allowing effective suppression via fusion and correlation without distorting true signals.

What would settle it

Demonstrating a case where sidelobes are coherent across the orthogonal datasets and steering angles, in which the sidelobe suppression and CNR improvement fail to occur.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22457 by Jiyan Dai, Kailiang Xu, Qiandong Sun, Rui He, Shilin Hou.

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Fig.4. (a) Simulated 3D volumes reconstructed using OPW, XDoppler, RC view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Fig.5. (a) 3D renderings using different methods. (b) 2D horizontal slices at a depth of 25 mm. (c) and (d) display the compu view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Row column addressed (RCA) transducers present a promising solution for ultrafast volumetric imaging with a reduced channel count and a large field of view. However, RCA-based 3D imaging is fundamentally limited by severe sidelobe artifacts and a low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), primarily due to weak transmit focusing inherent in RCA based ultrafast imaging strategies. To overcome these challenges, we propose a cross fusion and correlation (CFAC) method that leverages the incoherence of sidelobe artifacts and noise across datasets acquired using orthogonal apertures and multiple steering angle sets. The performance of the proposed method was validated through simulations, in vitro imaging of a multi-purpose ultrasound phantom, and in vivo experiments, and benchmarked against four established techniques: orthogonal plane wave (OPW) imaging, XDoppler method, row-column-specific frame-multiply-and-sum beamforming (RC-FMAS), and coherent factor (CF) imaging. Simulation results demonstrated that CFAC reduced sidelobe levels by 42.0 dB, 38.9 dB, 28.3 dB, and 25.5 dB compared to OPW, XDoppler, RC-FMAS, and CF, respectively. In phantom experiments, CFAC improved the CNR by up to 17.5 dB. Furthermore, in vivo imaging of a rat kidney showed that CFAC enables visualization of a significantly more detailed microvascular network, achieving a CNR improvement of over 25 dB against all benchmarked methods. In conclusion, the proposed CFAC method effectively suppresses sidelobe artifacts and noise in RCA-based imaging under low-SNR conditions, enabling high-contrast 3D visualization while preserving the high frame rate capabilities of ultrafast ultrasound imaging.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

CFAC gives solid empirical gains on RCA 3D ultrasound contrast but rests on an unverified incoherence assumption that the paper never checks directly.

read the letter

The paper's main contribution is a cross-fusion and correlation beamformer that combines row and column aperture data plus multiple steering angles to suppress sidelobes and noise in ultrafast volumetric imaging. It reports large, consistent improvements over four prior methods across simulation, phantom, and rat kidney scans, with sidelobe drops up to 42 dB and CNR gains of 17.5 dB in phantom and over 25 dB in vivo. Those numbers are the clearest takeaway for anyone working on row-column arrays, where channel count is low but artifact levels are high. The experimental design is straightforward and includes direct head-to-head metrics, which is useful even if the absolute values need replication elsewhere. The method itself is new in how it explicitly fuses the orthogonal views and steering sets rather than treating them separately. What is missing is any quantitative check on the central premise that sidelobes and noise stay incoherent across those datasets while true echoes stay coherent. No cross-correlation maps, coherence metrics, or sensitivity tests appear in the results, and the in vivo case involves motion and blood flow that could easily introduce partial coherence or decorrelate weak microvascular signals. If that assumption is only partly true, the correlation step risks either leaving residual artifacts or attenuating real low-amplitude features, which would shrink the claimed gains. This work is aimed at ultrasound beamforming researchers who already use or build RCA transducers. A reader looking for practical contrast improvements in low-SNR volumetric imaging will find the comparisons and numbers worth examining. It deserves peer review because the empirical results are there and the idea is testable; reviewers will likely press on the missing validation of the incoherence claim and ask for more in vivo cases or motion-robustness checks. I would send it out rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a cross fusion and correlation (CFAC) beamformer for row-column array (RCA) 3D ultrasound imaging. It fuses orthogonal-aperture datasets acquired at multiple steering angles and applies a correlation step to suppress sidelobe artifacts and noise, which are assumed to be incoherent across these acquisitions while true echoes remain coherent. Performance is evaluated in simulations (sidelobe reductions of 42.0 dB, 38.9 dB, 28.3 dB, and 25.5 dB vs. OPW, XDoppler, RC-FMAS, and CF), phantom experiments (CNR gains up to 17.5 dB), and in vivo rat kidney imaging (CNR gains >25 dB with improved microvascular detail), with direct comparisons to four established methods.

Significance. If the empirical gains hold under the stated conditions, CFAC could meaningfully advance ultrafast RCA-based 3D imaging by mitigating the inherent sidelobe and SNR limitations of plane-wave transmission, enabling higher-contrast microvascular visualization without sacrificing frame rate. The consistent quantitative improvements across simulation, phantom, and in vivo datasets, benchmarked against multiple independent techniques, provide a solid empirical foundation; the method's reliance on existing hardware (RCA transducers) further supports potential translational value.

major comments (2)

[Methods (CFAC formulation) and Results (in vivo experiments)] The central performance claims (abstract and Results section) rest on the assumption that sidelobe artifacts and noise remain sufficiently incoherent (low cross-correlation) across orthogonal row/column apertures and multiple steering-angle sets, while true signals stay coherent. No explicit cross-correlation maps, average correlation coefficients, or incoherence metrics are reported for any dataset, including the in vivo rat kidney case where physiological motion and structured scattering could introduce partial coherence in clutter or decorrelate weak echoes. Without this validation, it is unclear whether the reported >25 dB CNR improvement and microvascular detail arise specifically from the correlation step or from other processing elements.
[Results (in vivo rat kidney imaging)] In the in vivo results, the claim of visualizing a 'significantly more detailed microvascular network' is supported only by qualitative images and aggregate CNR; no quantitative microvascular-specific metrics (e.g., vessel density, branch count, or contrast-to-background for microvessels) are provided to substantiate the improvement beyond the overall CNR figure.

minor comments (2)

[Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the dynamic range (dB) used for all displayed images to allow direct comparison of sidelobe suppression across methods.
[Methods] The Methods section would benefit from a concise pseudocode or flowchart of the CFAC pipeline, including the exact fusion and correlation operations, to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which highlight important aspects of validation and quantification in our work. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods (CFAC formulation) and Results (in vivo experiments)] The central performance claims (abstract and Results section) rest on the assumption that sidelobe artifacts and noise remain sufficiently incoherent (low cross-correlation) across orthogonal row/column apertures and multiple steering-angle sets, while true signals stay coherent. No explicit cross-correlation maps, average correlation coefficients, or incoherence metrics are reported for any dataset, including the in vivo rat kidney case where physiological motion and structured scattering could introduce partial coherence in clutter or decorrelate weak echoes. Without this validation, it is unclear whether the reported >25 dB CNR improvement and microvascular detail arise specifically from the correlation step or from other processing elements.

Authors: We agree that explicit validation of the incoherence assumption would strengthen the paper. The performance gains are demonstrated through direct comparisons to four independent benchmarks (OPW, XDoppler, RC-FMAS, and CF) across simulation, phantom, and in vivo data, which isolate the contribution of the cross-fusion and correlation steps. However, we acknowledge the value of direct metrics. In the revised manuscript, we will add cross-correlation maps, average correlation coefficients, and incoherence metrics for representative acquisitions from all three datasets (including in vivo), showing low correlation for artifacts/noise versus high coherence for true echoes. This will clarify the specific role of the correlation step in the reported CNR and sidelobe improvements. revision: yes
Referee: [Results (in vivo rat kidney imaging)] In the in vivo results, the claim of visualizing a 'significantly more detailed microvascular network' is supported only by qualitative images and aggregate CNR; no quantitative microvascular-specific metrics (e.g., vessel density, branch count, or contrast-to-background for microvessels) are provided to substantiate the improvement beyond the overall CNR figure.

Authors: We agree that quantitative microvascular-specific metrics would provide stronger substantiation beyond qualitative images and aggregate CNR. In the revised manuscript, we will add such analyses to the in vivo results section, including vessel density, branch count, and microvessel contrast-to-background ratios computed for CFAC and all benchmark methods on the rat kidney data. These will be presented alongside the existing CNR values to better quantify the microvascular detail improvements. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical method validation with independent benchmarks

full rationale

The paper proposes the CFAC beamformer as a practical technique that fuses and correlates row-column aperture data across steering angles under an incoherence assumption for artifacts. All reported results (sidelobe reductions of 42.0/38.9/28.3/25.5 dB in simulation, CNR gains up to 17.5 dB in phantom, >25 dB in vivo) are direct empirical measurements against four external benchmark methods (OPW, XDoppler, RC-FMAS, CF). No derivation chain, fitted-parameter predictions, self-definitional equations, or load-bearing self-citations appear; the central claims rest on experimental outcomes rather than any reduction to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method depends on one key domain assumption about artifact incoherence; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Sidelobe artifacts and noise are incoherent across orthogonal aperture datasets and multiple steering angle sets.
This incoherence is the basis for the cross fusion and correlation steps that suppress artifacts while preserving signals.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5625 in / 1182 out tokens · 50597 ms · 2026-05-08T08:59:01.075181+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Real time volumetric ultrasound imaging system,

O. T. von Ramm and S. W. Smith, "Real time volumetric ultrasound imaging system," (in eng), J Digit Imaging, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 261-6, Nov 1990

1990
[2]

High -speed ultrasound volumetric imaging system. II. Parallel processing and image display,

O. T. von Ramm, S. W. Smith, and H. R. Pavy, "High -speed ultrasound volumetric imaging system. II. Parallel processing and image display," (in eng), IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 109-15, 1991

1991
[3]

4D microvascular imaging based on ultrafast Doppler tomography,

C. Demené et al., "4D microvascular imaging based on ultrafast Doppler tomography," NeuroImage, vol. 127, pp. 472-483, 2016/02/15/ 2016

2016
[4]

4D functional ultrasound imaging of whole-brain activity in rodents,

C. Rabut et al., "4D functional ultrasound imaging of whole-brain activity in rodents," Nature Methods, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 994-997, 2019/10/01 2019

2019
[5]

Real -time volume imaging using a crossed electrode array,

C. E. Demore, A. W. Joyce, K. Wall, and G. R. Lockwood, "Real -time volume imaging using a crossed electrode array," IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1252-1261, 2009

2009
[6]

Theoretical assessment of a crossed electrode 2 -D array for 3 -D imaging,

C. E. Morton and G. R. Lockwood, "Theoretical assessment of a crossed electrode 2 -D array for 3 -D imaging," in IEEE Symposium on Ultrasonics, 2003, 2003, vol. 1: IEEE, pp. 968-971

2003
[7]

A single crystal row–column-array for 3D ultrasound imaging,

G. Li et al., "A single crystal row–column-array for 3D ultrasound imaging," Ultrasonics, vol. 139, p. 107289, 2024/04/01/ 2024

2024
[8]

A 32 x 32 element row -column addressed capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducer,

A. S. Logan, L. L. P. Wong, A. I. H. Chen, and J. T. W. Yeow, "A 32 x 32 element row -column addressed capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducer," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1266-1271, 2011

2011
[9]

A 256 x 256 2-D array transducer with row-column addressing for 3-D rectilinear imaging,

C. H. Seo and J. T. Yen, "A 256 x 256 2-D array transducer with row-column addressing for 3-D rectilinear imaging," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 837-847, 2009

2009
[10]

4D in vivo ultrafast ultrasound imaging using a row -column addressed matrix and coherently - compounded orthogonal plane waves,

M. Flesch et al. , "4D in vivo ultrafast ultrasound imaging using a row -column addressed matrix and coherently - compounded orthogonal plane waves," Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol. 62, no. 11, p. 4571, 2017. 17

2017
[11]

Anatomic and Functional Imaging Using Row –Column Arrays,

J. A. Jensen et al., "Anatomic and Functional Imaging Using Row –Column Arrays," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 2722-2738, 2022

2022
[12]

4D functional imaging of the rat brain using a large aperture row -column array,

J. Sauvage et al., "4D functional imaging of the rat brain using a large aperture row -column array," IEEE transactions on medical imaging, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1884-1893, 2019

2019
[13]

Fast 3-D velocity estimation in 4 -D using a 62+ 62 row –column addressed array,

M. Schou et al., "Fast 3-D velocity estimation in 4 -D using a 62+ 62 row –column addressed array," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 608-623, 2020

2020
[14]

4D Vector Doppler Imaging using Row -Column Addressed Array,

Q. Sun, Y. Fu, S. Yan, and K. Xu, "4D Vector Doppler Imaging using Row -Column Addressed Array," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, pp. 1-1, 2024

2024
[15]

Three -Dimensional Shear Wave Elastography Using Acoustic Radiation Force and a 2 -D Row-Column Addressing (RCA) Array,

Z. Dong, U. W. Lok, M. R. Lowerison, C. Huang, S. Chen, and P. Song, "Three -Dimensional Shear Wave Elastography Using Acoustic Radiation Force and a 2 -D Row-Column Addressing (RCA) Array," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 448-458, 2024

2024
[16]

Three-Dimensional Super-Resolution Imaging Using a Row –Column Array,

J. A. Jensen et al., "Three-Dimensional Super-Resolution Imaging Using a Row –Column Array," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 538-546, 2020

2020
[17]

3D printed calibration micro-phantoms for super-resolution ultrasound imaging validation,

M. L. Ommen, M. Schou, C. Beers, J. A. Jensen, N. B. Larsen, and E. V. Thomsen, "3D printed calibration micro-phantoms for super-resolution ultrasound imaging validation," Ultrasonics, vol. 114, p. 106353, 2021/07/01/ 2021

2021
[18]

Curved Toroidal Row Column Addressed Transducer for 3D Ultrafast Ultrasound Imaging,

M. Caudoux et al. , "Curved Toroidal Row Column Addressed Transducer for 3D Ultrafast Ultrasound Imaging," IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 3279-3291, 2024

2024
[19]

Single Crystal Row -Column Array based Rat Brain 3 -D Ultrasound Localization Microscopy,

Q. Sun et al. , "Single Crystal Row -Column Array based Rat Brain 3 -D Ultrasound Localization Microscopy," (in eng), IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control, vol. Pp, Apr 23 2025

2025
[20]

Transcutaneous Imaging of Rabbit Kidney Using 3 -D Acoustic Wave Sparsely Activated Localization Microscopy with a Row-Column-Addressed Array,

Q. Tan et al. , "Transcutaneous Imaging of Rabbit Kidney Using 3 -D Acoustic Wave Sparsely Activated Localization Microscopy with a Row-Column-Addressed Array," IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, vol. PP, Jul 11 2024

2024
[21]

Nonlinear sound -sheet microscopy: Imaging opaque organs at the capillary and cellular scale,

B. Heiles et al., "Nonlinear sound -sheet microscopy: Imaging opaque organs at the capillary and cellular scale," Science, vol. 388, no. 6742, p. eads1325, 2025

2025
[22]

A large aperture row column addressed probe for in vivo 4D ultrafast doppler ultrasound imaging,

J. Sauvage et al. , "A large aperture row column addressed probe for in vivo 4D ultrafast doppler ultrasound imaging," Physics in Medicine & Biology, vol. 63, no. 21, p. 215012, 2018

2018
[23]

Simultaneous Azimuth and Fresnel Elevation Compounding: A Fast 3 -D Imaging Technique for Crossed -Electrode Arrays,

K. Latham, C. Ceroici, C. A. Samson, R. J. Zemp, and J. A. Brown, "Simultaneous Azimuth and Fresnel Elevation Compounding: A Fast 3 -D Imaging Technique for Crossed -Electrode Arrays," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 1657-1668, 2018

2018
[24]

A High -Performance 3 -D Imaging Technique Using Simultaneous Azimuth and Elevation Compounding,

N. A. Campbell et al. , "A High -Performance 3 -D Imaging Technique Using Simultaneous Azimuth and Elevation Compounding," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 3327-3337, 2022

2022
[25]

Fast Orthogonal Row –Column Electronic Scanning With Top -Orthogonal-to- Bottom Electrode Arrays,

C. Ceroici, T. Harrison, and R. J. Zemp, "Fast Orthogonal Row –Column Electronic Scanning With Top -Orthogonal-to- Bottom Electrode Arrays," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1009-1014, 2017

2017
[26]

Fast Orthogonal Row –Column Electronic Scanning Experiments and Comparisons,

C. Ceroici, K. Latham, B. A. Greenlay, J. A. Brown, and R. J. Zemp, "Fast Orthogonal Row –Column Electronic Scanning Experiments and Comparisons," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 1093-1101, 2019

2019
[27]

Ultrafast Orthogonal Row –Column Electronic Scanning (uFORCES) With Bias -Switchable Top -Orthogonal-to-Bottom Electrode 2 -D Arrays,

M. R. Sobhani, M. Ghavami, A. K. Ilkhechi, J. Brown, and R. Zemp, "Ultrafast Orthogonal Row –Column Electronic Scanning (uFORCES) With Bias -Switchable Top -Orthogonal-to-Bottom Electrode 2 -D Arrays," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 2823-2836, 2022

2022
[28]

XDoppler: Cross -Correlation of Orthogonal Apertures for 3D Blood Flow Imaging,

A. Bertolo, J. Sauvage, M. Tanter, M. Pernot, and T. Deffieux, "XDoppler: Cross -Correlation of Orthogonal Apertures for 3D Blood Flow Imaging," IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 3358-3368, 2021

2021
[29]

Ultrafast 3 -D Ultrasound Imaging Using Row – Column Array-Specific Frame-Multiply-and-Sum Beamforming,

J. Hansen -Shearer, M. Lerendegui, M. Toulemonde, and M. X. Tang, "Ultrafast 3 -D Ultrasound Imaging Using Row – Column Array-Specific Frame-Multiply-and-Sum Beamforming," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 480-488, 2022

2022
[30]

Compensated Row -Column Ultrasound Imaging System Using Multilayered Edge Guided Stochastically Fully Connected Random Fields,

I. Ben Daya, A. I. H. Chen, M. J. Shafiee, A. Wong, and J. T. W. Yeow, "Compensated Row -Column Ultrasound Imaging System Using Multilayered Edge Guided Stochastically Fully Connected Random Fields," Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 10644, 2017/09/06 2017

2017
[31]

Enhancing Row -column array (RCA) -based 3D ultrasound vascular imaging with spatial -temporal similarity weighting,

J. Zhang et al. , "Enhancing Row -column array (RCA) -based 3D ultrasound vascular imaging with spatial -temporal similarity weighting," IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, pp. 1-1, 2024

2024
[32]

Application of Hyper Beamforming Algorithm in Automobile Anti -collision Radar,

H. Tang and C. Miao, "Application of Hyper Beamforming Algorithm in Automobile Anti -collision Radar," in 2019 IEEE MTT-S International Microwave Biomedical Conference (IMBioC) , 6 -8 May 2019 2019, vol. 1, pp. 1 -4, doi: 10.1109/IMBIOC.2019.8777908

work page doi:10.1109/imbioc.2019.8777908 2019
[33]

3 -D imaging using row -column-addressed arrays with integrated apodization -part i: apodization design and line element beamforming,

M. F. Rasmussen, T. L. Christiansen, E. V. Thomsen, and J. A. Jensen, "3 -D imaging using row -column-addressed arrays with integrated apodization -part i: apodization design and line element beamforming," IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 947-958, 2015

2015
[34]

A Comparison of Coherence -Based Beamforming Techniques in High -Frame-Rate Ultrasound Imaging With Multi -Line Transmission,

G. Matrone, A. Ramalli, J. D’hooge, P. Tortoli, and G. Magenes, "A Comparison of Coherence -Based Beamforming Techniques in High -Frame-Rate Ultrasound Imaging With Multi -Line Transmission," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 329-340, 2020. 18

2020
[35]

Coherence factor of speckle from a multi -row probe,

K. W. Hollman, K. W. Rigby, and M. O. Donnell, "Coherence factor of speckle from a multi -row probe," in 1999 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium. Proceedings. International Symposium (Cat. No.99CH37027) , 17-20 Oct. 1999 1999, vol. 2, pp. 1257-1260 vol.2, doi: 10.1109/ULTSYM.1999.849225

work page doi:10.1109/ultsym.1999.849225 1999
[36]

Calculation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers,

J. A. Jensen and N. B. Svendsen, "Calculation of pressure fields from arbitrarily shaped, apodized, and excited ultrasound transducers," IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 262-267, 1992

1992
[37]

Field: A program for simulating ultrasound systems,

J. A. Jensen, "Field: A program for simulating ultrasound systems," Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, vol. 34, no. sup. 1, pp. 351-353, 1997

1997
[38]

Spatiotemporal Clutter Filtering of Ultrafast Ultrasound Data Highly Increases Doppler and fUltrasound Sensitivity,

C. Demené et al., "Spatiotemporal Clutter Filtering of Ultrafast Ultrasound Data Highly Increases Doppler and fUltrasound Sensitivity," IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2271-2285, 2015

2015
[39]

The Generalized Contrast -to-Noise Ratio: A Formal Definition for Lesion Detectability,

A. Rodriguez -Molares et al. , "The Generalized Contrast -to-Noise Ratio: A Formal Definition for Lesion Detectability," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 745-759, 2020

2020
[40]

Real -time delay-multiply-and-sum beamforming with coherence factor for in vivo clinical photoacoustic imaging of humans,

S. Jeon, E. -Y. Park, W. Choi, R. Managuli, K. j. Lee, and C. Kim, "Real -time delay-multiply-and-sum beamforming with coherence factor for in vivo clinical photoacoustic imaging of humans," Photoacoustics, vol. 15, p. 100136, 2019/09/01/ 2019

2019
[41]

Functional ultrasound imaging of deep visual cortex in awake nonhuman primates,

K. Blaize et al., "Functional ultrasound imaging of deep visual cortex in awake nonhuman primates," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 25, pp. 14453-14463, 2020

2020
[42]

Curvilinear 3-D Imaging Using Row-Column-Addressed 2-D Arrays With a Diverging Lens: Feasibility Study,

H. Bouzari et al., "Curvilinear 3-D Imaging Using Row-Column-Addressed 2-D Arrays With a Diverging Lens: Feasibility Study," IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 978-988, 2017

2017