Reply to "Comment on "So you think you can DAS? A viewpoint on delay-and-sum beamforming" - Think twice before f-numbering", published by M.F. Schiffner and G. Schmitz

Damien Garcia; Mohamed Tamraoui; François Varray

doi:10.1016/j.ultras.2023.107222

Reply to "Comment on "So you think you can DAS? A viewpoint on delay-and-sum beamforming" - Think twice before f-numbering", published by M.F. Schiffner and G. Schmitz

Ultrasonics. 2024 Mar:138:107222. doi: 10.1016/j.ultras.2023.107222. Epub 2023 Dec 15.

Authors

Damien Garcia¹, Mohamed Tamraoui², François Varray³

Affiliations

¹ CREATIS, CNRS UMR 5220, INSERM U1294, Université Lyon 1, INSA Lyon, France. Electronic address: damien.garcia@creatis.insa-lyon.fr.
² CREATIS, CNRS UMR 5220, INSERM U1294, Université Lyon 1, INSA Lyon, France. Electronic address: mohamed.tamraoui@creatis.insa-lyon.fr.
³ CREATIS, CNRS UMR 5220, INSERM U1294, Université Lyon 1, INSA Lyon, France. Electronic address: francois.varray@creatis.insa-lyon.fr.

PMID: 38290386
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultras.2023.107222

Abstract

In a 2021 paper, we delved into the details of delay-sum beamforming (DAS) in high-frame-rate ultrasound for medical imaging [1]. We also proposed a simple and fast method of determining an f-number, which is based on the directivity of the transducer elements. In their comment, Martin F. Schiffner and Georg Schmitz argue that we mistakenly link image quality enhancement to the reduction of measurement noise. They disapprove our proposed f-number, claiming it deteriorates the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Based on their previous work [2], they also highlight that the f-number should be derived from the grating lobe angles. In this reply, we explain their error in the SNR argument. We also illustrate the potential drawbacks of exclusively relying on grating lobes to establish an f-number with a DAS, suggesting that alternative approaches might be worthy of consideration.

Keywords: Delay-and-sum; Dynamic receive aperture; Plane wave imaging; f-number.