pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.09497 · v1 · pith:ZHGUFVP2new · submitted 2026-06-08 · ⚛️ physics.med-ph

Experimental Validation of Skull Acoustic Modelling Strategies for Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Simulation: A Cross-Comparison Study

Han Li , Aidan J Horner , Xinyu Zhang , Zhihong Huang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 14:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.med-ph
keywords transcranial focused ultrasoundskull acoustic modelingk-Wave simulationexperimental validationintracranial pressure fieldsfocal volume errorinsertion loss
0
0 comments X

The pith

Skull models for transcranial ultrasound simulations capture overall beam shapes but produce 20-77% errors in pressure and intensity.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests five skull modeling approaches inside the k-Wave simulator against direct needle-hydrophone measurements taken inside nineteen regions of real human skulls. Measurements were made at 220 kHz, 680 kHz and 1000 kHz using holographically reconstructed bowl sources. While the models generally place the beam in the right broad location, they consistently underestimate how much the skull attenuates the wave. This leads to over-predicted intracranial pressures, focal volumes that can be off by more than half, and focal spots displaced by several millimetres. The quantitative mismatch persists across all model types and frequencies, showing that current parameterisation choices leave large uncertainty in exposure levels and target coverage.

Core claim

Across frequencies, mean peak-pressure errors ranged from 20% to 31%, intensity errors reached 41% to 77%, -6 dB focal-volume errors ranged from 11% to 67%, and focal-position discrepancies were typically several millimetres. All models predicted smaller insertion losses than measured, indicating systematic underestimation of skull attenuation and overestimation of transmitted intracranial exposure. The linear-mapping model with fixed attenuation produced the lowest frequency-averaged pressure error, yet no model showed consistent superiority across all metrics.

What carries the argument

Cross-comparison of five k-Wave skull representations (two voxel-wise linear mappings, two three-layer models, one single-layer fixed-parameter model) benchmarked directly against needle-hydrophone pressure fields recorded in nineteen skull regions.

If this is right

  • Simulations can locate the general direction of the beam but cannot be trusted for precise exposure or focal-volume calculations.
  • All tested models underestimate skull attenuation, so planned intracranial pressures are likely higher than the models predict.
  • Focal-position errors of several millimetres remain regardless of model complexity.
  • No single skull parameterisation strategy eliminates the quantitative mismatch across frequencies and skull samples.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Treatment-planning software that relies on these models should incorporate explicit uncertainty margins for exposure and target location.
  • Future validation work could test whether hybrid models that combine linear mapping with frequency-dependent layers reduce the observed discrepancies.
  • The consistent underestimation of attenuation suggests that skull porosity or absorption mechanisms not captured by current parameter maps may need direct measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The needle-hydrophone measurements accurately represent the true intracranial pressure fields without major artifacts from positioning, calibration, or skull preparation differences.

What would settle it

Repeating the intracranial measurements on the same skulls with an independent hydrophone calibration or with altered skull preparation and obtaining substantially lower error rates would falsify the reported quantitative uncertainties.

read the original abstract

Accurate acoustic modelling of the skull is essential for simulation-guided transcranial focused ultrasound (tFUS), but commonly used skull parameterisation strategies differ in complexity and reported accuracy. This study experimentally compared five k-Wave skull models: two voxel-wise linear mapping models, two three-layer models, and one single-layer fixed-parameter model. Nineteen regions of interest from five historical and two Thiel-embalmed human skulls were tested at 220 kHz, 680 kHz, and 1000 kHz. Bowl-surface source fields were reconstructed using acoustic holography, and simulated intracranial pressure fields were benchmarked against needle-hydrophone measurements. Across frequencies, mean peak-pressure errors ranged from 20% to 31%, whereas intensity errors reached 41% to 77%. Errors in -6 dB focal volume ranged from 11% to 67%, and focal-position discrepancies were typically several millimetres. Simulations generally predicted smaller insertion losses than measured, indicating a tendency to underestimate skull-related attenuation and overestimate transmitted intracranial exposure. The linear mapping model with fixed attenuation gave the lowest frequency-averaged pressure error, but no model showed a consistent advantage across all metrics. These results show that current skull models can reproduce gross intracranial beam patterns while retaining substantial quantitative uncertainty in exposure, focal coverage, and target localisation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript experimentally compares five k-Wave skull acoustic models (two voxel-wise linear mappings, two three-layer, one single-layer fixed-parameter) against needle-hydrophone measurements of intracranial pressure fields. Data come from 19 regions across five historical and two Thiel-embalmed skulls, tested at 220 kHz, 680 kHz, and 1000 kHz, with source fields reconstructed via acoustic holography. Reported results include mean peak-pressure errors of 20–31 %, intensity errors of 41–77 %, focal-volume errors of 11–67 %, and focal-position shifts of several millimetres; the linear-mapping model with fixed attenuation performed best on frequency-averaged pressure error, but no model was consistently superior. The central conclusion is that current models reproduce gross beam patterns while leaving substantial quantitative uncertainty in exposure, focal coverage, and target localisation.

Significance. If the hydrophone benchmarks are reliable, the work supplies the first broad, multi-skull, multi-frequency empirical comparison of skull-parameterisation strategies for tFUS simulation. The concrete error ranges and the observation that all models underestimate insertion loss are directly usable for setting realistic expectations in simulation-guided treatment planning.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the quoted error bounds (20–31 % peak pressure, 41–77 % intensity) are presented as model performance metrics without any accompanying quantification or repeatability assessment of the needle-hydrophone ground-truth measurements themselves. Because the central claim rests on these measurements being an unbiased reference, the absence of reported positioning repeatability, calibration uncertainty, or skull-preparation effects prevents separation of model error from measurement artifact.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The single major comment is addressed point-by-point below. We agree that the abstract requires revision to better contextualize the reported errors with measurement uncertainties.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the quoted error bounds (20–31 % peak pressure, 41–77 % intensity) are presented as model performance metrics without any accompanying quantification or repeatability assessment of the needle-hydrophone ground-truth measurements themselves. Because the central claim rests on these measurements being an unbiased reference, the absence of reported positioning repeatability, calibration uncertainty, or skull-preparation effects prevents separation of model error from measurement artifact.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract should reference the precision of the experimental reference data. In the revised manuscript we will add a concise clause to the abstract noting the estimated repeatability of hydrophone positioning (sub-millimetre) and calibration uncertainty, which are quantified in the Methods. This will allow readers to distinguish model error from measurement variability without lengthening the abstract excessively. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: pure experimental comparison with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

This is an experimental validation study that benchmarks five skull acoustic models against independent needle-hydrophone pressure measurements across multiple skulls and frequencies. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are presented that reduce to the inputs by construction. The central results (error ranges of 20-31% peak pressure, etc.) are direct empirical differences, not derived quantities. No self-citation load-bearing steps or ansatzes appear in the provided text. The measurement uncertainty concern raised by the skeptic is a separate validity issue, not a circularity in any derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of hydrophone measurements as ground truth and the assumption that the tested skull samples and regions are representative of clinical variability; the models themselves inherit standard acoustic assumptions but introduce no new entities.

free parameters (1)
  • skull acoustic parameters (speed, density, attenuation)
    Each of the five models uses different mappings or fixed values for skull properties derived from CT or literature; these are inputs to the simulations being validated.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Linear acoustic propagation holds in the frequency range and pressure amplitudes used
    k-Wave simulations and hydrophone comparisons assume linearity; invoked implicitly by choice of simulation tool and measurement method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5774 in / 1274 out tokens · 27279 ms · 2026-06-27T14:09:47.171785+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Linear mapping from the CT to density and sound speed with fixed attenuation coefficients (LM-Fa) [32]: 𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 0.66𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 + 1011, 𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 > 260 𝑣𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 1.333𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 + 166.7 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 13.3

  2. [2]

    Linear mapping from the CT to density and sound speed with dynamic attenuation coefficients (LM-Da) [13]: 𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = (𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = (𝑣𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)(𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 − 𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟) 𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝜌𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 + 𝑣𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = (𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑖𝑛) ∗ (1 − 𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 − 𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑖𝑛 ) 1 2 + 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑚𝑖𝑛 Where ...

    1900

  3. [3]

    Outer cortical table, trabecular diploë, and inner cortical table segmented from CT; each layer assigned fixed properties (3L-F): 𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 1850, 𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 = 1700 [25] 𝑣𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 2800, 𝑣𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 = 2300 [25] 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 4, 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 = 16

  4. [4]

    Layered segmentation as 3L-F, density and sound speed were mapped from HU with local specificity; attenuation fixed for cortical bone and SDR-dependent for trabecular bone (3L-D) [29]: 𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 0.66𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 + 1011, 𝜌𝐶𝑇 > 260 𝑣𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 0.70𝐻𝑈𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 + 1730 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 4, 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙_𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 = 4 + 17(1 − 𝑆𝐷𝑅)

  5. [5]

    Single-layer skull represented as a homogeneous medium [24]: 𝜌𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 1860 𝑣𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 2890 𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑢𝑙𝑙 = 7.3 Acoustic source selection and characterization Three single -element, concave focused ultrasound transducers (Precision Acoustics, UK, aperture diameter = 60 mm, radius of curvature (ROC) = 75 mm) were used in this study, each were operated near its cente...

  6. [6]

    Intensity on the mapping plane: 𝐼 = 1 𝐴−6𝑑𝐵 ∫ 𝑝2 𝜌𝑐𝐴−6𝑑𝐵 𝑑𝐴 , where 𝐴−6𝑑𝐵 is the -6 dB coverage of the local peak

    Insertion loss errors: 𝜀𝑝 = |𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑚−𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑎| 𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑎 ∗ 100%, 𝜀𝐼 = |𝐼𝑠𝑖𝑚−𝐼𝑚𝑒𝑎| 𝐼𝑚𝑒𝑎 ∗ 100%, where 𝑝 and 𝐼 are i nsertion-normalised pressure: 𝑝 = 𝑝𝐼𝐶 𝑝𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 and intensity: 𝐼 = 𝐼𝐼𝐶 𝐼𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 . Intensity on the mapping plane: 𝐼 = 1 𝐴−6𝑑𝐵 ∫ 𝑝2 𝜌𝑐𝐴−6𝑑𝐵 𝑑𝐴 , where 𝐴−6𝑑𝐵 is the -6 dB coverage of the local peak

  7. [7]

    Focal volume variation: 𝜀𝑉,𝜏 = |(𝑉𝜏)𝑠𝑖𝑚−(𝑉𝜏)𝑚𝑒𝑎| (𝑉𝜏)𝑚𝑒𝑎 ∗ 100%, 𝜏 ∈ {−3, −6, −12 𝑑𝐵}, where 𝑉𝜏 is insertion-normalized volume: 𝑉𝜏 = (𝑉𝜏)𝐼𝐶 (𝑉𝜏)𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒

  8. [8]

    The peak location displacement 𝜀𝐷 = |(∆𝐷)𝑠𝑖𝑚 − (∆𝐷)𝑚𝑒𝑎|, where 𝐷 is the v ector distance from the free -field peak to the intracranial peak: 𝐷 = 𝑥𝐼𝐶 − 𝑥𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 , and ∆𝐷 is the signed axial -lateral displacement: ∆𝐷 = 𝑠𝑔𝑛(𝐷𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙)√𝐷𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 2 + 𝐷𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 2. Results Source validation in free-field Validation of the numerically reconstructed sources was underta...

    1984

  9. [9]

    Low - intensity ultrasound neuromodulation: An overview of mechanisms and emerging human applicati ons

    Fomenko A, Neudorfer C, Dallapiazza RF, Kalia SK, Lozano AM. Low - intensity ultrasound neuromodulation: An overview of mechanisms and emerging human applicati ons. Brain Stimul 2018;11:1209 –17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2018.08.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2018.08.013 2018

  10. [10]

    Accelerated Transcranial Ultrasound Neuromodulation in Parkinson’s Disease: A Pilot Study

    Samuel N, Ding MYR, Sarica C, Darmani G, Harmsen IE, Grippe T, et al. Accelerated Transcranial Ultrasound Neuromodulation in Parkinson’s Disease: A Pilot Study. Movement Diso rders 2023;38:2209 –16. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.29622

    work page doi:10.1002/mds.29622 2023

  11. [11]

    Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation: A Review of the Excitatory and Inhibitory Effects on Brain Activity in Human and Animals

    Zhang T, Pan N, Wang Y, Liu C, Hu S. Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation: A Review of the Excitatory and Inhibitory Effects on Brain Activity in Human and Animals. Front Hum Neurosci 2021;15:749162. https://doi.org/10.3389/FNHUM.2021.749162

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.749162 2021

  12. [12]

    Transcranial focused ultrasound selectively increases perfusion and modulates functional connectivity of deep brain regions in humans

    Kuhn T, Spivak NM, Dang BH, Becerra S, Halavi SE, Rotstein N, et al. Transcranial focused ultrasound selectively increases perfusion and modulates functional connectivity of deep brain regions in humans. Front Neural Circuits 2023;17:1120410. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2023.1120410

    work page doi:10.3389/fncir.2023.1120410 2023

  13. [13]

    Low- intensity focused ultrasound to human amygdala reveals a causal role in ambiguous emotion processing and alters local and network activity

    Algermissen J, Rascu M, Weber LA, Boer T den, Martin E, Treeby B, et al. Low- intensity focused ultrasound to human amygdala reveals a causal role in ambiguous emotion processing and alters local and network activity. Neuron 2026;114:1269-1289.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEURON.2026.03.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2026.03.009 2026

  14. [14]

    Ultrasound neuromodulation reveals dis tinct roles of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula in learning

    Koutsoumpari N, Algermissen J, Yaakub SN, Ouden HE den, Bault N, Fouragnan E. Ultrasound neuromodulation reveals dis tinct roles of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula in learning. PLoS Biol 2026;24:e3003767. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.3003767

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003767 2026

  15. [15]

    Non - invasive ultrasonic neuromodulation of the human nucleus accumbens impacts reward sensitivity

    Yaakub SN, Eraifej J, Bault N, Lojkiewiez M, Bellec E, Roberts J, et al. Non - invasive ultrasonic neuromodulation of the human nucleus accumbens impacts reward sensitivity. Nature Communications 2025 16:1 2025;16:10192 -. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-65080-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65080-9 2025

  16. [16]

    M., & von Bloh, W

    Yoo S, Mittelstein DR, Hurt RC, Lacroix J, Shapiro MG. Focused ultrasound excites cortical neurons via mechanosensitive calcium accumulation and ion channel amplification. Nat Commun 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467 - 022-28040-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467 2022

  17. [17]

    Transcranial magnet ic stimulation for investigating causal brain-behavioral relationships and their time course

    Sliwinska MW, Vitello S, Devlin JT. Transcranial magnet ic stimulation for investigating causal brain-behavioral relationships and their time course. Journal of Visualized Experiments 2014. https://doi.org/10.3791/51735

    work page doi:10.3791/51735 2014

  18. [18]

    Ultrasound system for precise neuromodulation of human deep brain circuits

    Martin E, Roberts M, Grigoras IF, Wright O, Nandi T, Rieger SW, et al. Ultrasound system for precise neuromodulation of human deep brain circuits. Nature Communications 2025 16:1 2025;16:8024 -. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-63020-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-63020-1 2025

  19. [19]

    Implementation of a Skull -Conformal Phased Array for Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Therapy

    Adams C, Jones RM, Yang SD, Kan WM, Leung K, Zhou Y, et al. Implementation of a Skull -Conformal Phased Array for Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Therapy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2021;68:3457 –68. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2021.3077802

    work page doi:10.1109/tbme.2021.3077802 2021

  20. [20]

    Physical properties of tissues: a comprehensive reference book

    Duck F. Physical properties of tissues: a comprehensive reference book. 2013

    2013

  21. [21]

    Transcranial focused ultrasound -mediated neurochemical and functional connectivity changes in deep cortical regions in humans

    Yaakub SN, White TA, Roberts J, Martin E, Verhagen L, Stagg CJ, et al. Transcranial focused ultrasound -mediated neurochemical and functional connectivity changes in deep cortical regions in humans. Nat Commun 2023;14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40998-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-40998-0 2023

  22. [22]

    Transcranial ultrasound stimulation in humans is associated with an auditory confound that can be effectively masked

    Braun V, Blackmore J , Cleveland RO, Butler CR. Transcranial ultrasound stimulation in humans is associated with an auditory confound that can be effectively masked. Brain Stimul 2020;13:1527 –34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2020.08.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2020.08.014 2020

  23. [23]

    Effects of skull properties on continuous -wave transcranial focused ultrasound transmission

    Li H, Barnard I, Halliwell T, Zha ng X, Melzer A, Huang Z. Effects of skull properties on continuous -wave transcranial focused ultrasound transmission. J Acoust Soc Am 2025;157:2336–49. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0036344

    work page doi:10.1121/10.0036344 2025

  24. [24]

    Atte nuation, scattering, and absorption of ultrasound in the skull bone

    Pinton G, Aubry JF, Bossy E, Muller M, Pernot M, Tanter M. Atte nuation, scattering, and absorption of ultrasound in the skull bone. Med Phys 2012;39:299–307. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3668316

    work page doi:10.1118/1.3668316 2012

  25. [25]

    Neuromodulation with single -element transcranial focused ultrasound in human thalamu s

    Legon W, Ai L, Bansal P, Mueller JK. Neuromodulation with single -element transcranial focused ultrasound in human thalamu s. Hum Brain Mapp 2018;39:1995–2006. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23981

    work page doi:10.1002/hbm.23981 2018

  26. [26]

    Transcranial Focused Ultrasound to the Right Prefrontal Cortex Improves Mood and Alters Functional Connect ivity in Humans

    Sanguinetti JL, Hameroff S, Smith EE, Sato T, Daft CMW, Tyler WJ, et al. Transcranial Focused Ultrasound to the Right Prefrontal Cortex Improves Mood and Alters Functional Connect ivity in Humans. Front Hum Neurosci 2020;14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00052

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00052 2020

  27. [27]

    Comparison between Ray -Tracing and Full -Wave Simulation for Transcranial Ultrasound Focusing on a Clinical System Using the Transfer Matrix Formalism

    Bancel T, Houdouin A, Annic P, Rachmilevitch I, Shapira Y, Tanter M, et al. Comparison between Ray -Tracing and Full -Wave Simulation for Transcranial Ultrasound Focusing on a Clinical System Using the Transfer Matrix Formalism. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2021;68:2554 –65. https://doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2021.3063055

    work page doi:10.1109/tuffc.2021.3063055 2021

  28. [28]

    Numerical and experimental evaluation of low -intensity transcranial focused ultrasound wave propagation using human skulls for brain neuromodulation

    Chen M, Peng C, Wu H, Huang CC, Kim T, Traylor Z, et al. Numerical and experimental evaluation of low -intensity transcranial focused ultrasound wave propagation using human skulls for brain neuromodulation. Med Phys 2023;50:38–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16090

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.16090 2023

  29. [29]

    Numerical evaluation of the skull for human neuromodulation with transcranial focused ultrasound

    Mueller JK, Ai L, Bansal P, Legon W. Numerical evaluation of the skull for human neuromodulation with transcranial focused ultrasound. J Neural Eng 2017;14. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/AA843E

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aa843e 2017

  30. [30]

    k -Wave: MATLAB toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields

    Treeby BE, Cox BT. k -Wave: MATLAB toolbox for the simulation and reconstruction of photoacoustic wave fields. J Biomed Opt 2010;15:021314. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.3360308

    work page doi:10.1117/1.3360308 2010

  31. [31]

    Acoustic holography as a metrological tool for characterizing medical ultrasound sources and fields

    Sapozhnikov OA, Tsysar SA, Khokhlova VA, Kreider W. Acoustic holography as a metrological tool for characterizing medical ultrasound sources and fields. J Acoust Soc Am 2015;138:1515–32. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4928396

    work page doi:10.1121/1.4928396 2015

  32. [32]

    Three - layer model with absorption for conservative est imation of the maximum acoustic transmission coefficient through the human skull for transcranial ultrasound stimulation

    Attali D, Tiennot T, Schafer M, Fouragnan E, Sallet J, Caskey CF, et al. Three - layer model with absorption for conservative est imation of the maximum acoustic transmission coefficient through the human skull for transcranial ultrasound stimulation. Brain Stimul 2023;16:48 –55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2022.12.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2022.12.005 2023

  33. [33]

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

    Aubry J-F, Bates O, Boehm C, Butts Pauly K, Christensen D, Cueto C, et al. Benchmark problems for transcranial ultrasound simulation: Intercomparison of compressional wave models. J Acoust Soc Am 2022;152:1003 –19. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0013426

    work page doi:10.1121/10.0013426 2022

  34. [34]

    A simulation study on the sensitivity of transcranial ray -tracing ultrasound modeling to skull properties

    Andrew Drainville R, Chatillon S, Moore D, Snell J, Padilla F, Lafon C, et al. A simulation study on the sensitivity of transcranial ray -tracing ultrasound modeling to skull properties. J Acoust Soc Am 2023;154:1211 –25. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020761

    work page doi:10.1121/10.0020761 2023

  35. [35]

    New semi- analytical method for fast transcranial ultrasonic field simulation

    Angla C, Chouh H, Mondou P, Toullelan G, Perlin K, Brulon V, et al. New semi- analytical method for fast transcranial ultrasonic field simulation. Phys Med Biol 2024;69:095017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/AD3882

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ad3882 2024

  36. [36]

    Ex vivo optimisation of a heterogeneous speed of sound model of the human skull for non-invasive transcranial focused ultrasound at 1 MHz

    Marsac L, Chauvet D, La Greca R, Boch AL, Chaumoitre K, Tanter M, et al. Ex vivo optimisation of a heterogeneous speed of sound model of the human skull for non-invasive transcranial focused ultrasound at 1 MHz. International Journal of Hyperthermia 2017;33:635 –45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656736.2017.1295322

    work page doi:10.1080/02656736.2017.1295322 2017

  37. [37]

    Simultaneous optimization of RBE -weighted dose and nanometric ionization distributions in treatment planning with carbon ions

    Li H, Zhang X, Halliwell T, Wang N, Huang Z. A multi -layer transcranial focused ultrasound model for neuromodulation procedure planning and insertion loss estimation. Phys Med Biol 2025;70:215024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361 - 6560/AE1543

    work page doi:10.1088/1361 2025

  38. [38]

    Impact of skull density ratio on efficacy and safety of magnetic resonance – guided focused ultrasound treatment of essential tremor

    D’Souza M, Chen KS, Rosenberg J, Elia s WJ, Eisenberg HM, Gwinn R, et al. Impact of skull density ratio on efficacy and safety of magnetic resonance – guided focused ultrasound treatment of essential tremor. J Neurosurg 2020;132:1392–7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.JNS183517

    work page doi:10.3171/2019.2.jns183517 2020

  39. [39]

    The relevance of skull density ratio in selecting candidates for transcranial MR - guided focused ultrasound

    Boutet A, Gwun D, Gramer R, Ranjan M, Elias GJB, Tilden D, et al. The relevance of skull density ratio in selecting candidates for transcranial MR - guided focused ultrasound. J Neurosurg 2020;132:1785 –91. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.2.JNS182571

    work page doi:10.3171/2019.2.jns182571 2020

  40. [40]

    The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning

    Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A. The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. vol. 41. 1996

    1996

  41. [41]

    A comparative study of experimental and simulated ultrasound beam propagation through cranial bones

    Krokhmal A, Simcock IC, Treeby BE, Martin E. A comparative study of experimental and simulated ultrasound beam propagation through cranial bones. Phys Med Biol 2025;70:025007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ADA19D

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ada19d 2025

  42. [42]

    Longitudinal and shear mode ultrasound propagation in human skull bone

    White PJ, Clement GT, Hynynen K. Longitudinal and shear mode ultrasound propagation in human skull bone. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006;32:1085–96

    2006

  43. [43]

    Modeling power law absorption and dispersion in viscoelastic solids using a split -field and the fractional Laplacian

    Treeby BE, Cox ; B T, Cox BT. Modeling power law absorption and dispersion in viscoelastic solids using a split -field and the fractional Laplacian. J Acoust Soc Am 2014;136:1499–510. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4894790

    work page doi:10.1121/1.4894790 2014

  44. [44]

    Enha ncing Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Simulation Accuracy: The Impact of Transducer Geometry and Skull Modelling

    Li H, Barnard I, Halliwell T, Gilbertson T, Huang Z. Enha ncing Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Simulation Accuracy: The Impact of Transducer Geometry and Skull Modelling. 2024 IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Joint Symposium (UFFC -JS), IEEE; 2024, p. 1 –4. https://doi.org/10.1109/UFFC-JS60046.2024.10794133

    work page doi:10.1109/uffc-js60046.2024.10794133 2024