Experimental and computer simulation validation of ultrasound phase interference created by lateral inhomogeneity of transit time in replica bone marrow composite models

Purpose: The measurement of broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA) in cancellous bone for the assessment of osteoporosis follows a parabolic-type dependence with bone volume fraction; having minima values corresponding to both entire bone and entire marrow. Langton has recently proposed that the primary BUA mechanism may be significant phase interference due to variations in propagation transit time through the test sample as detected over the phase-sensitive surface of the receive ultrasound transducer. This fundamentally simple concept assumes that the propagation of ultrasound through a complex solid : liquid composite sample such as cancellous bone may be considered by an array of parallel ‘sonic rays’. The transit time of each ray is defined by the proportion of bone and marrow propagated, being a minimum (tmin) solely through bone and a maximum (tmax) solely through marrow. A Transit Time Spectrum (TTS), ranging from tmin to tmax, may be defined describing the proportion of sonic rays having a particular transit time, effectively describing lateral inhomogeneity of transit time over the surface of the receive ultrasound transducer. Phase interference may result from interaction of ‘sonic rays’ of differing transit times. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there is a dependence of phase interference upon the lateral inhomogenity of transit time by comparing experimental measurements and computer simulation predictions of ultrasound propagation through a range of relatively simplistic solid:liquid models exhibiting a range of lateral inhomogeneities. Methods: A range of test models was manufactured using acrylic and water as surrogates for bone and marrow respectively. The models varied in thickness in one dimension normal to the direction of propagation, hence exhibiting a range of transit time lateral inhomogeneities, ranging from minimal (single transit time) to maximal (wedge; ultimately the limiting case where each sonic ray has a unique transit time). For the experimental component of the study, two unfocused 1 MHz ¾” broadband diameter transducers were utilized in transmission mode; ultrasound signals were recorded for each of the models. The computer simulation was performed with Matlab, where the transit time and relative amplitude of each sonic ray was calculated. The transit time for each sonic ray was defined as the sum of transit times through acrylic and water components. The relative amplitude considered the reception area for each sonic ray along with absorption in the acrylic. To replicate phase-sensitive detection, all sonic rays were summed and the output signal plotted in comparison with the experimentally derived output signal. Results: From qualtitative and quantitative comparison of the experimental and computer simulation results, there is an extremely high degree of agreement of 94.2% to 99.0% between the two approaches, supporting the concept that propagation of an ultrasound wave, for the models considered, may be approximated by a parallel sonic ray model where the transit time of each ray is defined by the proportion of ‘bone’ and ‘marrow’. Conclusions: This combined experimental and computer simulation study has successfully demonstrated that lateral inhomogeneity of transit time has significant potential for phase interference to occur if a phase-sensitive ultrasound receive transducer is implemented as in most commercial ultrasound bone analysis devices.

Influence of high-intensity interval training on adaptations in well-trained cyclists

The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of 3 different high-intensity interval training regimens on the first and second ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2), anaerobic capacity (ANC), and plasma volume (PV) in well-trained endurance cyclists. Before and after 2 and 4 weeks of training, 38 well-trained cyclists (VO2peak = 64.5 +/- 5.2 ml[middle dot]kg-1[middle dot]min-1) performed (a) a progressive cycle test to measure VO2peak, peak power output (PPO), VT1, and VT2; (b) a time to exhaustion test (Tmax) at their VO2peak power output (Pmax); and (c) a 40-km time-trial (TT40). Subjects were assigned to 1 of 4 training groups (group 1: n = 8, 8 3 60% Tmax at Pmax, 1:2 work-recovery ratio; group 2: n = 9, 8 x 60% Tmax at Pmax, recovery at 65% maximum heart rate; group 3: n = 10, 12 x 30 seconds at 175% PPO, 4.5-minute recovery; control group: n = 11). The TT40 performance, VO2peak, VT1,VT2, and ANC were all significantly increased in groups 1, 2, and 3 (p < 0.05) but not in the control group. However, PV did not change in response to the 4-week training program. Changes in TT40 performance were modestly related to the changes in VO2peak, VT1, VT2, and ANC (r = 0.41, 0.34, 0.42, and 0.40, respectively; all p < 0.05). In conclusion, the improvements in TT40 performance were related to significant increases in VO2peak, VT1,VT2, and ANC but were not accompanied by significant changes in PV. Thus, peripheral adaptations rather than central adaptations are likely responsible for the improved performances witnessed in well-trained endurance athletes following various forms of high-intensity interval training programs.

Measurement error of rearfoot kinematics during running between a 100Hz and 30Hz camera

Background: Measurement accuracy is critical for biomechanical gait assessment. Very few studies have determined the accuracy of common clinical rearfoot variables between cameras with different collection frequencies. Research question: What is the measurement error for common rearfoot gait parameters when using a standard 30Hz digital camera compared to 100Hz camera? Type of study: Descriptive. Methods: 100 footfalls were recorded from 10 subjects ( 10 footfalls per subject) running on a treadmill at 2.68m/s. A high-speed digital timer, accurate within 1ms served as an external reference. Markers were placed along the vertical axis of the heel counter and the long axis of the shank. 2D coordinates for the four markers were determined from heel strike to heel lift. Variables of interest included time of heel strike (THS), time of heel lift (THL), time to maximum eversion (TMax), and maximum rearfoot eversion angle (EvMax). Results: THS difference was 29.77ms (+/- 8.77), THL difference was 35.64ms (+/- 6.85), and TMax difference was 16.50ms (+/- 2.54). These temporal values represent a difference equal to 11.9%, 14.3%, and 6.6% of the stance phase of running gait, respectively. EvMax difference was 1.02 degrees (+/- 0.46). Conclusions: A 30Hz camera is accurate, compared to a high-frequency camera, in determining TMax and EvMax during a clinical gait analysis. However, relatively large differences, in excess of 12% of the stance phase of gait, for THS and THL variables were measured.