Grating lobes in ultrasound OEM design: why the probe and beamformer must be evaluated together

Channel count is only part of the architecture

A channel specification does not describe the full imaging system. The number of transducer elements, simultaneously acquired receive channels, active aperture and any in-probe processing must be distinguished before two platforms can be compared.

Grating lobes introduce another question: how does the array sample the acoustic field? Element spacing relative to wavelength and the requested steering range influence spatial aliasing. More electronics channels alone do not correct a sampling problem imposed by array geometry.

For an OEM team, this connects the probe specification directly to the receive path and beamforming method. It also means that a design judged at one frequency and steering angle cannot automatically be treated as equivalent across an entire operating band.

What current research is investigating

An accepted IEEE IUS 2026 abstract, “Spatial Multi-Rate De-Aliasing with Multi-Row, Multi-Pitch Arrays for Fundamental Grating-Lobe Suppression in Ultrasound Imaging,” investigates adjacent rows with different element pitches and a corresponding spatial de-aliasing method. Its reported work includes simulation and in-vitro phantom evaluation. This is a conference abstract, not a clinical performance claim or a complete validation dossier.

A separate preprint, “Large elements and advanced beamformers for increased field of view in 2-D ultrasound matrix arrays,” compares array-element choices and beamforming methods including delay-and-sum and adaptive approaches. The accessible version was revised on 16 April 2026. Its findings concern particular experimental configurations; they do not establish a universal optimum of 192, 256 or any other channel count.

These studies motivate joint evaluation of array geometry and reconstruction. Neither demonstrates performance of an ALEVA product.

A practical comparison plan

Start with the intended application: operating band, depth range, field of view, acceptable artifacts, acquisition rate and processing constraints. State whether channel counts refer to element-level data, subarray outputs or sequentially acquired data.

Then define a controlled comparison. Keep the target, acquisition settings and display processing consistent. Document any differences in aperture, transmit sequence or reconstruction rather than allowing them to disappear behind a channel-count label.

Evaluate several outputs, not just the visual appearance of one image:

• Point-target response and off-axis artifacts at several depths and steering angles.

• Contrast behavior in representative phantom targets, with the measurement method stated.

• Sensitivity to the operating band and to reconstruction settings.

• Processing latency, memory requirements and the acquisition assumptions of each method.

A method that improves one metric may increase processing cost or behave differently under other conditions. The engineering decision should follow the measured trade-off relevant to the product, not the largest available channel count.

Applying this to an OEM development program

ALEVA’s public engineering scope includes probe integration, beamformer architecture and imaging software. For a custom ultrasound program, a useful early deliverable is a requirements-led comparison plan specifying what will be acquired, reconstructed and measured.

Public research methods can be evaluated within that plan. This article does not claim that ALEVA commercially uses the methods described, nor does it provide confidential architecture or internal test results.

Explore ultrasound beamformer OEM engineering and custom OEM development. ALEVA is based in San Jose, California, USA.

Sources and limits

1. IEEE IUS 2026 accepted research abstract. Reviewed 4 October 2026. Abstract-level evidence; not represented as a full journal or clinical validation study.
2. Gardner and Oelze, 2026 preprint, version 2. Revised 16 April 2026; reviewed 4 October 2026. No claim that a future-dated journal issue was inspected in full.