Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Benchmark problems for transcranial ultrasound simulation: Intercomparison of compressional wave models.
Aubry, Jean-Francois; Bates, Oscar; Boehm, Christian; Butts Pauly, Kim; Christensen, Douglas; Cueto, Carlos; Gélat, Pierre; Guasch, Lluis; Jaros, Jiri; Jing, Yun; Jones, Rebecca; Li, Ningrui; Marty, Patrick; Montanaro, Hazael; Neufeld, Esra; Pichardo, Samuel; Pinton, Gianmarco; Pulkkinen, Aki; Stanziola, Antonio; Thielscher, Axel; Treeby, Bradley; van 't Wout, Elwin.
Afiliación
  • Aubry JF; Physics for Medicine Paris, National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) U1273, ESPCI Paris, Paris Sciences and Lettres University, French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) UMR 8063, Paris, France.
  • Bates O; Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
  • Boehm C; Institute of Geophysics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.
  • Butts Pauly K; Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
  • Christensen D; Department of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.
  • Cueto C; Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
  • Gélat P; Department of Surgical Biotechnology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London NW3 2PF, United Kingdom.
  • Guasch L; Earth Science and Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Jaros J; Centre of Excellence IT4Innovations, Faculty of Information Technology, Brno University of Technology, Bozetechova 2, Brno 612 00, Czech Republic.
  • Jing Y; Graduate Program in Acoustics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA.
  • Jones R; Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA.
  • Li N; Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
  • Marty P; Institute of Geophysics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.
  • Montanaro H; Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society (IT'IS), Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Neufeld E; Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society (IT'IS), Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Pichardo S; Radiology and Clinical Neurosciences Departments, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  • Pinton G; Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA.
  • Pulkkinen A; Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, 70211 Kuopio, Finland.
  • Stanziola A; Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
  • Thielscher A; Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
  • Treeby B; Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
  • van 't Wout E; Institute for Mathematical and Computational Engineering, School of Engineering and Faculty of Mathematics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
J Acoust Soc Am ; 152(2): 1003, 2022 08.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36050189
ABSTRACT
Computational models of acoustic wave propagation are frequently used in transcranial ultrasound therapy, for example, to calculate the intracranial pressure field or to calculate phase delays to correct for skull distortions. To allow intercomparison between the different modeling tools and techniques used by the community, an international working group was convened to formulate a set of numerical benchmarks. Here, these benchmarks are presented, along with intercomparison results. Nine different benchmarks of increasing geometric complexity are defined. These include a single-layer planar bone immersed in water, a multi-layer bone, and a whole skull. Two transducer configurations are considered (a focused bowl and a plane piston operating at 500 kHz), giving a total of 18 permutations of the benchmarks. Eleven different modeling tools are used to compute the benchmark results. The models span a wide range of numerical techniques, including the finite-difference time-domain method, angular spectrum method, pseudospectral method, boundary-element method, and spectral-element method. Good agreement is found between the models, particularly for the position, size, and magnitude of the acoustic focus within the skull. When comparing results for each model with every other model in a cross-comparison, the median values for each benchmark for the difference in focal pressure and position are less than 10% and 1 mm, respectively. The benchmark definitions, model results, and intercomparison codes are freely available to facilitate further comparisons.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Transductores / Benchmarking Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: J Acoust Soc Am Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Transductores / Benchmarking Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: J Acoust Soc Am Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Francia
...