Published in

Society of Photo-optical Instrumentation Engineers, Proceedings of SPIE, 2016

DOI: 10.1117/12.2211174

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

A comparative study of shear wave speed estimation techniques in optical coherence elastography applications

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Optical Coherence Elastography (OCE) is a widely investigated noninvasive technique for estimating the mechanical properties of tissue. In particular, vibrational OCE methods aim to estimate the shear wave velocity generated by an external stimulus in order to calculate the elastic modulus of tissue. In this study, we compare the performance of five acquisition and processing techniques for estimating the shear wave speed in simulations and experiments using tissue-mimicking phantoms. Accuracy, contrast-to-noise ratio, and resolution are measured for all cases. The first two techniques make the use of one piezoelectric actuator for generating a continuous shear wave propagation (SWP) and a tone-burst propagation (TBP) of 400 Hz over the gelatin phantom. The other techniques make use of one additional actuator located on the opposite side of the region of interest in order to create an interference pattern. When both actuators have the same frequency, a standing wave (SW) pattern is generated. Otherwise, when there is a frequency difference df between both actuators, a crawling wave (CrW) pattern is generated and propagates with less speed than a shear wave, which makes it suitable for being detected by the 2D cross-sectional OCE imaging. If df is not small compared to the operational frequency, the CrW travels faster and a sampled version of it (SCrW) is acquired by the system. Preliminary results suggest that TBP (error < 4.1%) and SWP (error < 6%) techniques are more accurate when compared to mechanical measurement test results.