TY - JOUR
T1 - Benchmark problems for transcranial ultrasound simulation
T2 - Intercomparison of compressional wave models
AU - Aubry, Jean Francois
AU - Bates, Oscar
AU - Boehm, Christian
AU - Butts Pauly, Kim
AU - Christensen, Douglas
AU - Cueto, Carlos
AU - Gélat, Pierre
AU - Guasch, Lluis
AU - Jaros, Jiri
AU - Jing, Yun
AU - Jones, Rebecca
AU - Li, Ningrui
AU - Marty, Patrick
AU - Montanaro, Hazael
AU - Neufeld, Esra
AU - Pichardo, Samuel
AU - Pinton, Gianmarco
AU - Pulkkinen, Aki
AU - Stanziola, Antonio
AU - Thielscher, Axel
AU - Treeby, Bradley
AU - Van 'T Wout, Elwin
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to thank the International Transcranial Ultrasonic Stimulation Safety and Standards (ITRUSST) consortium for providing the motivation and framework to conduct this work and Robert McGough for helpful discussions regarding the use of FOCUS as a reference simulation. O.B. was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Doctoral Training in Neurotechnology, Grant No. EP/L016737/ 1. K.B.P. and N.L. acknowledge the support of National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant Nos. R01 CA227687, NIH T32 EB009653, and NSF DGE 1656518. D.C. acknowledges support from the Focused Ultrasound Foundation and NIH Grant Nos. R01 EB013433, R01 CA172787, R01 EB028316, and R37 CA224141. C.C. acknowledges the support of EPSRC Grant No. EP/T51780X/1. P.G. and E.v.W. acknowledge the support of EPSRC Grant No. EP/P012434/1 and use of the UCL Myriad High Performance Computing Facility (Myriad@UCL) and associated support services. J.J. was supported by Brno University of Technology under Project No. FIT-S-20–6309. Y.J. acknowledges the support of NIH Grant No. R01EB025205. P.M. and C.B. acknowledge support from the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS) under Project Nos. s1040 and sm59. S.P. acknowledges the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. A.P. would like to acknowledge Academy of Finland Project Nos. 320166, 336119, and 336799. A.S. and B.T. were supported by EPSRC Grant No. EP/S026371/1. A.T. was supported by Lundbeck Foundation Grant No. R313-2019-622.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Author(s).
PY - 2022/8/1
Y1 - 2022/8/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137061715&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85137061715&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1121/10.0013426
DO - 10.1121/10.0013426
M3 - Article
C2 - 36050189
AN - SCOPUS:85137061715
SN - 0001-4966
VL - 152
SP - 1003
EP - 1019
JO - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
JF - Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
IS - 2
ER -