Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Aubry, Jean-Francois
Bates, Oscar
Boehm, Christian
Pauly, Kim Butts
Christensen, Douglas
Cueto, Carlos
Gelat, 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
Wout, Elwin van 't
Publication Year :
2022

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), 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.<br />Comment: 18 pages, 7 figures

Subjects

Subjects :
Physics - Computational Physics

Details

Database :
arXiv
Publication Type :
Report
Accession number :
edsarx.2202.04552
Document Type :
Working Paper
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0013426