An ultrasound imaging system exploiting transducers and multiplexers on a flexible substrate together with a log-delta CMOS ADC
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Ultrasound (US) imaging is a fundamental tool in healthcare for the diagnosis of diverse conditions. Wearable, flexible ultrasound patches could expand the scope of US imaging to continuous, at-home monitoring without professional intervention, but require scaling to large numbers of transducer elements. This poses challenges in interconnect density, power consumption, and data bandwidth. To improve interconnect density, we present the first integration of flexible ultrasound transducers with flexible a-IGZO thin-film transistor (TFT) multiplexing electronics. In the Si CMOS readout chip, a new circuit technique cuts front-end power, while a log-delta ADC compresses data efficiently. Our system achieves an 8× reduction in required front-end circuitry and a 42% decrease in front-end power. The data needed to describe the ultrasound image are reduced five-fold, decreasing data transmission power by the same factor. These advances bring the vision of wearable high-density, large-area ultrasound imaging patches for monitoring one step closer.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Photoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging · Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (59)
Show source-provided references
1. Monahan, M. et al. MICE or NICE? An economic evaluation of clinical decision rules in the diagnosis of heart failure in primary care. Int. J. Cradiol.241, 255–261 (2017).10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.02.149 ↗
2. Schlembach, D., Hund, M., Wolf, C. & Vatish, M. Diagnostic utility of angiogenic biomarkers in pregnant women with suspected preeclampsia: a health economics review. Pregnancy Hypertens. 17, 28–35 (2019).10.1016/j.preghy.2019.03.002 ↗
3. Tõrõk, M., Kovács, F. & Doszpod, J. Cost-effectiveness of home telemedical cardiotocography compared with traditional outpatient monitoring. J. Telemed. Telecare 6, 69–70 (2000).10.1258/1357633001934203 ↗
4. Heuvel, T. L. A. v. d. et al. Comparison study of low-cost ultrasound devices for estimation of gestational age in resource-limited countries. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 44, 2250–2260 (2018).10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.05.023 ↗
5. Rothberg, J. M. et al. Ultrasound-on-chip platform for medical imaging, analysis, and collective intelligence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118 (2021).10.1073/pnas.2019339118 ↗
6. Lin, M. et al. A fully integrated wearable ultrasound system to monitor deep tissues in moving subjects. Nat. Biotechnol. 42, 448–457 (2024).10.1038/s41587-023-01800-0 ↗
7. Vostrikov, S., Tille, J., Benini, L. & Cossettini, A. TinyProbe: a wearable 32-channel multimodal wireless ultrasound probe. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 72, 64–76 (2025).10.1109/TUFFC.2024.3496474 ↗
8. Fournelle, M. et al. Portable ultrasound research system for use in automated bladder monitoring with machine-learning-based segmentation. Sensors 21 (2021).10.3390/s21196481 ↗
9. Xu, X. et al. A programmable platform for accelerating the development of smart ultrasound transducer probe. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 68, 1296–1304 (2020).10.1109/TUFFC.2020.3042472 ↗
10. Wang, C. et al. Monitoring of the central blood pressure waveform via a conformal ultrasonic device. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 241, 687–695 (2018).10.1038/s41551-018-0287-x ↗
11. Hu, H. et al. Stretchable ultrasonic transducer arrays for three-dimensional imaging on complex surfaces. Sci. Adv. 4, 3979 (2018).10.1126/sciadv.aar3979 ↗
12. Omidvar, A., Cretu, E., Rohling, R., Cresswell, M. & Hodgson, A. J. Flexible PolyCMUTs: fabrication and characterization of a flexible polymer-based capacitive micromachined ultrasonic array for conformal ultrasonography. Adv. Mater. Technol. 8 (2022).10.1002/admt.202201316 ↗
13. Hu, H. et al. A wearable cardiac ultrasound imager. Nature 613, 667–675 (2023).10.1038/s41586-022-05498-z ↗
14. Wang, C. et al. Continuous monitoring of deep-tissue haemodynamics with stretchable ultrasonic phased arrays. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 5, 749–758 (2021).10.1038/s41551-021-00763-4 ↗
15. Elloian, J. et al. Flexible ultrasound transceiver array for non-invasive surface-conformable imaging enabled by geometric phase correction. Sci. Rep. 12 (2022).10.1038/s41598-022-20721-7 ↗
16. Kelle, K., Leitner, C., Baumgartner, C., Benini, L. & Greco, F. Fully printed flexible ultrasound transducer for medical applications. Adv. Mater. Technol. 8, 2300577 (2023).10.1002/admt.202300577 ↗
17. Zhang, L. et al. A conformable phased-array ultrasound patch for bladder volume monitoring. Nat. Electron.7, 77–90 (2024).10.1038/s41928-023-01068-x ↗
18. Omidvar, A., Rohling, R. N., Cretu, E., Cresswell, M. E. & Hodgson, A. J. Preliminary demonstration of pulse-echo imaging with a long monolithic flexible CMUT array. IEEE Open J. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 4, 191–203 (2024).10.1109/OJUFFC.2024.3506532 ↗
19. Chen, J. et al. Skin-conformable flexible and stretchable ultrasound transducer for wearable imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 7, 811–820 (2024).10.1109/TUFFC.2024.3352655 ↗
20. Xue, X. et al. Flexible ultrasonic transducers for wearable biomedical applications: a review on advanced materials, structural designs, and future prospects. IEEE Trans. Ultrason Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 71, 789–810 (2024).10.1109/TUFFC.2023.3333318 ↗
21. Verasonics Inc, [Online]. Available: http://www.verasonics.com (Accessed 27 December 2024).
22. Hopf, Y. M. et al. A pitch-matched transceiver ASIC with shared hybrid beamforming ADC for high-frame-rate 3-d intracardiac echocardiography. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 57, 3228–3242 (2022).10.1109/JSSC.2022.3201758 ↗
23. Gurun, G. et al. Single-chip CMUT-on-CMOS front-end system for real-time volumetric IVUS and ICE imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 61, 239–250 (2014).10.1109/TUFFC.2014.6722610 ↗
24. Bhuyan, A. et al. Integrated circuits for volumetric ultrasound imaging with 2-D CMUT arrays. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 7, 796–804 (2013).10.1109/TBCAS.2014.2298197 ↗
25. Gelinck, G. H. et al. Flexible active-matrix displays and shift registers based on solution-processed organic transistors. Nat. Mater. 3, 106–110 (2004).10.1038/nmat1061 ↗
26. Tripathi, A. K., Myny, K., Hou, B., Wezenberg, K. & Gelinck, G. H. Electrical characterization of flexible InGaZnO transistors and 8-b transponder chip down to a bending radius of 2 mm. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 62, 4063–4068 (2015).10.1109/TED.2015.2494694 ↗
27. Torres-Miranda, M. et al. Characterization and compact modeling of self-aligned short-channel organic transistors. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 65, 4563–4570 (2018).10.1109/TED.2018.2867364 ↗
28. Huggins, J., Wheeler, M., Russell, A. & James, A. OLCD in automotive applications – enabling curved and non-rectangular. In 29th International Workshop on Active-Matrix Flatpanel Displays and Devices (AM-FPD), Kyoto (IEEE, 2022).10.23919/AM-FPD54920.2022.9851375 ↗
29. Nag, M. et al. Flexible AMOLED display and gate-driver with self-aligned IGZO TFT on plastic foil. Symp. Dig. Tech. Pap. 45, 248–251 (2014).10.1002/j.2168-0159.2014.tb00068.x ↗
30. Noh, Y.-Y., Zhao, N., Caironi, M. & Sirringhaus, H. Downscaling of self-aligned, all-printed polymer thin-film transistors. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2, 784–789 (2007).10.1038/nnano.2007.365 ↗
31. Viola, F. A. et al. All-organic transistors printed on a biodegradable and bioderived substrate for sustainable bioelectronics. Materials Today Bio, 29 (2024).10.1016/j.mtbio.2024.101274 ↗
32. van Neer, P. L. et al. Flexible large-area ultrasound arrays for medical applications made using embossed polymer structures. Nat. Commun. 15 (2024).10.1038/s41467-024-47074-1 ↗
33. Pragmatic Semiconductor. Available: https://www.pragmaticsemi.com.
34. Horowitz, P. & Hill, W. The Art of Electronics (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
35. Tripathi, A. K., Myny, K., Hou, B., Wezenberg, K. & Gelinck, A. G. H. Electrical characterization of flexible InGaZnO. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 62, 4063–4068 (2015).10.1109/TED.2015.2494694 ↗
36. Zhou, M. et al. A prototype system with custom-designed RX ICs for contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 69, 1649–1660 (2022).10.1109/TUFFC.2022.3161226 ↗
37. CIRS, Model 040GSE Multi-Purpose, Multi-Tissue Ultrasound Phantom: User Guide, Norfolk, USA (2013).
38. Rindal, O. M. H., Aakhus, S., Holm, S. & Austeng, A. Hypothesis of improved visualization of microstructures in the interventricular septum with ultrasound and adaptive beamforming. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 43, 2494–2499 (2017).10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.05.023 ↗
39. Rodriguez-Molares, A. et al. The UltraSound ToolBox. In IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium 1-4 (IEEE, 2017).10.1109/ULTSYM.2016.7728520 ↗
40. Ramalli, A., Boni, E., Roux, E., Liebgott, H. & Tortoli, P. Design, implementation, and medical applications of 2-D ultrasound sparse arrays. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 69, 2739–2755 (2022).10.1109/TUFFC.2022.3162419 ↗
41. Nooijens, S. et al. Design of a sparse ellipsoidal array for volumetric ultrasound imaging of the prostate. 2020 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS) (IEEE, 2020).10.1109/IUS46767.2020.9251385 ↗
42. Harput, S. et al. 3-D super-resolution ultrasound imaging with a 2-D sparse array. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 67, 269–277 (2020).10.1109/TUFFC.2019.2943646 ↗
43. Masoumi, M. H., Kaddoura, T. & Zemp, R. J. Costas sparse 2-D arrays for high-resolution ultrasound imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 70, 460–472 (2023).10.1109/TUFFC.2023.3256339 ↗
44. Li, X., Gachagan, A. & Murray, P. Design of 2D sparse array transducers for anomaly detection in medical phantoms. Sensors 20 (2020).10.3390/s20185370 ↗
45. Hansen-Shearer, J., Lerendegui, M., Toulemonde, M. & Tang, M.-X. Ultrafast 3-D ultrasound imaging using row-column array-specific frame-multiply-and-sum beamforming. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 69, 480–488 (2021).10.1109/TUFFC.2021.3122094 ↗
46. Rasmussen, M. F., Christiansen, T. L., Thomsen, E. V. & Jensen, J. A. 3-D imaging using row-column-addressed arrays with integrated apodization—part I: apodization design and line element beamforming. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 62, 947–958 (2015).10.1109/TUFFC.2014.006531 ↗
47. Jensen, J. A. et al. Three-dimensional super-resolution imaging using a row–column array. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 67, 538–546 (2020).10.1109/TUFFC.2019.2948563 ↗
48. Guo, P. et al. A 125 μm-pitch-matched transceiver ASIC with micro-beamforming ADC and multi-level signaling for 3-D transfontanelle ultrasonography. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 59, 2604–2617 (2024).10.1109/JSSC.2024.3355854 ↗
49. Perdios, D., Besson, A., Arditi, M. & Thiran, J.-P. A deep learning approach to ultrasound image recovery. In IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), Washington, DC, USA (IEEE, 2017).10.1109/ULTSYM.2017.8092262 ↗
50. Kulkarn, K. Lohit, P. T. S. & Ashok, R. K. a. A. ReconNet: non-iterative reconstruction of images from compressively sensed measurements. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA (IEEE, 2016).10.1109/CVPR.2016.55 ↗
51. Adler, A., Elad, M. & Zibulevsky, M. Compressed learning: a deep neural network approach. ArXiv: 1610.09615 (2016).
52. Sayood, K. Introduction to Data Compression (Elsevier, 2017).10.1016/B978-0-12-809474-7.00019-7 ↗
53. Wang, H., Schembari, F. & Staszewski, R. B. An event-driven Quasi-level-crossing Delta Modulator Based on Residue Quantization,”. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 55, 298–311 (2020).10.1109/JSSC.2019.2950175 ↗
54. Texas Instruments. Signal processing overview of ultrasound systems for medical imaging. Available: https://www.ti.com/lit/wp/sprab12/sprab12.pdf. (Accessed 5 December 2024).
55. Madiena, C., Faurie, J., Porée, J. & Garcia, D. Color and vector flow imaging in parallel ultrasound with sub-Nyquist sampling. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 65, 795–803 (2018).10.1109/TUFFC.2018.2817885 ↗
56. Wagner, N., Eldar, Y. C., Feuer, A., Danin, G. & Friedman, Z. Xampling in ultrasound imaging. In SPIE Medical Imaging, Orlando (SPIE, 2011).10.1117/12.877818 ↗
57. Hopf, Y. M. et al. A pitch-matched high-frame-rate ultrasound imaging ASIC for catheter-based 3-d probes. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 59, 476–491 (2024).10.1109/JSSC.2023.3299749 ↗
58. Treeby, B. E. & Cox, B. T. k-Wave: MATLAB toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields. J. Biomed. Opt. 15 (2010).10.1117/1.3360308 ↗
59. Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E. P. & Bovik, A. C. Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In The 37th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003, Pacific Grove, CA, USA Vol. 2, 1398–1402 (IEEE, 2003).