About

Log in?

DTU users get better search results including licensed content and discounts on order fees.

Anyone can log in and get personalized features such as favorites, tags and feeds.

Log in as DTU user Log in as non-DTU user No thanks

DTU Findit

Journal article

Benchmark problems for transcranial ultrasound simulation: Intercomparison of compressional wave models

From

Université PSL1

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill2

Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society3

University of Calgary4

University of Eastern Finland5

Neurophysics, Magnetic Resonance, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark6

Magnetic Resonance, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark7

Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark8

Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile9

Imperial College London10

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich11

Stanford University12

University of Utah13

City, University of London14

University College London15

Brno University of Technology16

Pennsylvania State University17

...and 7 more

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.

Language: English
Publisher: Acoustical Society of America
Year: 2022
Pages: 1003-1019
ISSN: 15208524 , 00014966 and 01630962
Types: Journal article
DOI: 10.1121/10.0013426
ORCIDs: Thielscher, Axel , 0000-0002-0087-8804 and 0000-0001-7782-011X

DTU users get better search results including licensed content and discounts on order fees.

Log in as DTU user

Access

Analysis