Publication Details
Benchmark problems for transcranial ultrasound simulation: Intercomparison of compressional wave models
Bates Oscar (ICL)
Boehm Christian (ETH)
Pauly Kim Butts (USTAN)
Christensen Douglas (UUTAH)
Cueto Carlos (ICL)
Gélat Pierre (UCL)
Guasch Lluis (ICL)
Jaroš Jiří, doc. Ing., Ph.D. (DCSY FIT BUT)
Jing Yun (PSU)
Jones Rebecca (UNC)
Li Ningrui (USTAN)
Marty Patrick (ETH)
Montanaro Hazael (IT'IS)
Neufeld Esra (ETH)
Pichardo Samuel (UCalgary)
Pinton Gianmarco (UNC)
Pulkkinen Aki (University of Eastern Finland)
Stanziola Antonio (UCL)
Thielscher Axel (DTU)
Treeby Bradley E. (UCL)
van 't Wout Elwin (UC-CL)
Transcranial Ultrasound Simulations, Wave Models, Benchmaks
Computational models of acoustic wave propagation are frequently used in transcranial ultrasound therapy, forexample, 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, aninternational working group was convened to formulate a set of numerical benchmarks. Here, these benchmarksare presented, along with intercomparison results. Nine different benchmarks of increasing geometric complexityare 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 atotal of 18 permutations of the benchmarks. Eleven different modeling tools are used to compute the benchmarkresults. The models span a wide range of numerical techniques, including the finite-difference time-domainmethod, angular spectrum method, pseudospectral method, boundary-element method, and spectral-elementmethod. Good agreement is found between the models, particularly for the position, size, and magnitude of theacoustic 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 than10% and 1 mm, respectively. The benchmark definitions, model results, and intercomparison codes are freelyavailable to facilitate further comparisons.
@ARTICLE{FITPUB12688,
author = "Jean-Francois Aubry and Oscar Bates and Christian Boehm and Butts Kim Pauly and Douglas Christensen and Carlos Cueto and Pierre G\'{e}lat and Lluis Guasch and Ji\v{r}\'{i} Jaro\v{s} and Yun Jing and Rebecca Jones and Ningrui Li and Patrick Marty and Hazael Montanaro and Esra Neufeld and Samuel Pichardo and Gianmarco Pinton and Aki Pulkkinen and Antonio Stanziola and Axel Thielscher and E. Bradley Treeby and Elwin Wout 't van",
title = "Benchmark problems for transcranial ultrasound simulation: Intercomparison of compressional wave models",
pages = "1003--1019",
journal = "Journal of the Acoustical Society of America",
volume = 152,
number = 2,
year = 2022,
ISSN = "1520-8524",
doi = "10.1121/10.0013426",
language = "english",
url = "https://www.fit.vut.cz/research/publication/12688"
}