Organizations: Computer Aided Medical Procedures (CAMP), Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany · Munich Center for Machine Learning (MCML), Munich, Germany · Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Medical ultrasound (US) is inherently degraded by speckle, a granular interference pattern that is often treated as a complex form of noise in image restoration. However, unlike random noise, US speckle originates from coherent scattering within tissue and is therefore highly spatially dependent and deterministic under fixed acquisition conditions, making US speckle suppression fundamentally different from natural image denoising. Because speckle-free US targets are unavailable in practice, self-supervised denoising is necessary. Blind-spot networks (BSN) are the dominant self-supervised paradigm for natural images, but their pixel-wise masking strategy assumes spatially independent noise, an assumption poorly matched to US speckle, which is spatially correlated over multiple pixels rather than pixel-wise independent. To address this mismatch, we propose Mask2Restore, a self-supervised US despeckling framework that reformulates despeckling as contextual inpainting with block-wise masking on single noisy images. Unlike pixel-wise BSN masking, block-wise masking addresses this multi-pixel speckle correlation by removing locally correlated speckle neighborhoods and shifting the reconstruction cues used by the network from adjacent speckle correlations to broader anatomical context. We further introduce cross-resolution context regularization (CRCR), which suppresses residual speckle bias by enforcing consistency across multi-resolution predictions. Experiments on simulated and in vivo carotid US, unseen fine-structure cases, and downstream cardiac segmentation demonstrate improved speckle-detail trade-offs, better preservation of fine anatomical structures, and practical value for subsequent image analysis.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: (a) Comparison between pixel-wise Gaussian noise ( σ=15 ) and simulator-generated US speckle. Unlike random Gaussian noise, US speckle forms spatially correlated granular patterns that can obscure fine image structures. (b) Paradigm-level illustration of the speckle-detail trade-off in self-supervised US despeckling, where A denotes blind-spot denoising, B denotes generative despeckling, and C denotes Mask2Restore. Methods that prioritize structural fidelity may leave residual speckle, whereas stronger despeckling priors can over-smooth fine anatomy. Mask2Restore aims to improve this trade-off by suppressing speckle while preserving fine anatomical structures.
Fig. 2: An overview of the proposed framework.
Category
Method
Simulated (reference available)
Carotid (no reference)
PSNR ref↑
SSIM ref↑
LPIPS ref↓
NIQE NR↓
EPI →1†
gCNR ↑†
NIQE NR↓
EPI →1†
gCNR ↑†
Non-learning
BM3D [ 29 ]
17.83 ± 1.61
0.707 ± 0.042
0.496 ± 0.023
8.86 ± 0.15
1.66 ± 0.14
0.761 ± 0.200
8.86 ± 0.23
0.68 ± 0.16
0.774 ± 0.125
NLM [ 7 ]
17.92 ± 1.76
0.738 ± 0.032
0.455 ± 0.027
8.08 ± 0.26
1.70 ± 0.15
0.778 ± 0.207
7.32 ± 0.31
0.66 ± 0.16
0.808 ± 0.125
Noisy–Noisy Pairs
Noise2Noise [ 17 ]
18.08 ± 1.72
0.679 ± 0.045
0.385 ± 0.011
7.20 ± 0.24
1.90 ± 0.19
0.770 ± 0.221
–
–
–
Single Noisy Images
N2V [ 18 ]
17.38 ± 1.07
0.303 ± 0.009
0.618 ± 0.008
8.00 ± 0.45
12.41 ± 1.09
0.587 ± 0.236
6.61 ± 0.60
5.92 ± 1.71
0.382 ± 0.118
StructN2V [ 20 ]
17.89 ± 1.31
0.391 ± 0.018
0.598 ± 0.012
8.95 ± 0.50
8.26 ± 0.70
0.625 ± 0.246
9.49 ± 0.42
3.97 ± 1.09
0.454 ± 0.135
TABLE I: Quantitative comparison on simulated (with reference) and in vivo carotid (no reference) datasets. Best and second-best results are shown in bold and underline . Reference-based metrics and NIQE are marked with ref and NR (no-reference), respectively.
Fig. 3: Qualitative comparison on in vivo carotid and simulated datasets.
Fig. 4: Evaluation on unseen fine structures. The first two rows show simulated samples with atypical structures unseen during training, while the third row shows an in vivo carotid case. Red arrows mark fine structures preserved by our method but over-smoothed by competing methods.
Variant
Components
Metrics
Masking
CRCR
PSNR (dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
w/o Masking
–
✓
18.59
0.372
w/o CRCR
✓
–
18.31
0.383
Full
✓
✓
20.36
0.810
TABLE II: Component ablation. ✓ indicates the component is enabled. Quantitative scores are computed on simulated data with references (below); in vivo examples are included only for qualitative comparison (above).
Sampling ratio r
Block size N
5
7
9
0.005
0.7594
0.7860
0.7970
0.01
0.7532
0.8104
0.7284
0.015
0.7496
0.6950
0.6993
TABLE III: Sensitivity analysis of masking hyperparameters, measured by SSIM.