MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967598632 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2011.0280

Experimental verification of a split-aperture transmit beamforming technique for suppressing grating lobes in large pitch phased arrays

2011· article· en· W1967598632 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Torbatian, Robert B. A. Adamson, Manohar Bance, Jeremy A. Brown

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeamformingPhased arrayGratingMain lobeSide lobeAperture (computer memory)Imaging phantomOpticsTransducerAcousticsComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsAntenna (radio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phased array ultrasound transducers are desirable in some applications where large field-of-view is required from a small aperture. Fabrication of high-frequency phased array transducers is challenging due to the inter-element pitch constraint (~0.5 λ) to avoid large grating lobe artifacts. Phase coherence imaging (PCI) has been introduced as a method for suppressing grating lobes in large-pitch arrays, however, it is not as effective when the grating lobe echoes have large overlap in the time-domain. In previous work we suggested a technique called split-aperture transmit beamforming to increase the effectiveness of PCI in grating lobe suppression of these arrays and used computer simulation to evaluate its effectiveness. In the present work we report on the experimental verification of the technique using a commercially available high-frequency ultrasound linear array system (Vevo 2100, Visualsonics). We demonstrate that by using only two split-aperture transmit beamforming events along with PCI we can effectively suppress the grating lobes resulting from a 50 MHz, 64-element, 1.26 λ pitch phased array to less than 60 db for a wire-phantom placed at 25 degrees from the center of transducer. We further show that this grating lobe suppression greatly improves the contrast in tissue phantom. Finally, we show that the measured beamformed radiation patterns are consistent with simulations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207