Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 22 references

A 32-element staggered array of tiny MEMS loudspeakers steers ultrasound from 20 kHz to 100 kHz, with grating lobes beginning at 58.2 kHz at extreme angles.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A 32-element staggered array of MEMS loudspeakers achieves steerable broadband ultrasound beams from 20 to 100 kHz, with grating lobes limiting large steering angles.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful compact MEMS array demo, but the 1.5 m measurement distance puts the upper half of the claimed band in the near field, so the validation is weaker than the prose suggests. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01372 v1 pith:2SUQV7LA submitted 2025-09-01 eess.SY cs.SY

ConamArray: A 32-Element Broadband MEMS Ultrasound Transducer Array

Dennis Laurijssen , Rens Baeyens , Walter Daems , Jan Steckel This is my paper
classification eess.SY cs.SY
keywords MEMS ultrasound transducer arraybroadband beam steeringgrating lobe onsetstaggered two-row arrayairborne ultrasoundbeamformingultrasonic imagingacoustic array
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Steerable ultrasound arrays usually mean bulky transducers, high-voltage drive electronics, or both. The paper reports a 32-element transmit array built from small MEMS loudspeakers in two staggered rows, and claims it forms and steers a main acoustic lobe across 20 kHz to 100 kHz using a standard delay-and-sum beamformer. The stagger halves the projected element spacing to 3.05 mm, which delays the onset of grating lobes to about 58.2 kHz at extreme steering angles. Simulated and measured radiation patterns at 0, -40, and 80 degrees agree, supporting the feasibility of broadband beam steering with compact, low-voltage MEMS hardware. If this holds, small robots, localization systems, and ultrasonic imagers could get steerable wide-band sonar without large apertures or high-voltage amplifiers.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that 32 small MEMS loudspeakers, arranged in two staggered rows of 16, form a compact broadband ultrasound transmit array whose main lobe can be steered from 20 kHz to 100 kHz. The central design idea is the stagger: it halves the effective inter-element spacing from the physical 6.1 mm within a row to a projected 3.05 mm. Applying the spatial-aliasing condition d_proj sin(phi) < lambda/2 gives a grating-lobe onset of 58.2 kHz at azimuth phi = 90 degrees, and both the simulation and the anechoic-chamber measurements reproduce that onset when steering to 80 degrees, while 0 and -40 degrees show a dominant main lobe up to roughly 70 kHz. The claim is that broadband beam

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the staggered two-row geometry itself, modeled as a uniform linear array with all element positions projected onto a single line. The stagger halves the projected inter-element spacing to d_proj = 3.05 mm, and the delay-and-sum steering law tau_m = -p_m dot u / c is implemented as integer sample delays across 32 synchronized DACs. The bound d_proj sin(phi) < lambda/2, equivalently f < c/(2 d_proj sin(phi)), converts the geometry into a concrete frequency limit: 58.2 kHz at extreme azimuth. The synchronization architecture - one timer clock driving all DAC updates via DMA - is what makes the assumption of phase-coherent elements physically plausible.

Load-bearing premise

That the two staggered rows can be collapsed into a single line of 32 identical, omnidirectional speakers with a perfect 3.05 mm pitch, with no depth offset between rows and no significant element directivity.

What would settle it

In an anechoic chamber, measure the 3D positions of the 32 acoustic ports with sub-millimeter accuracy, then compare the measured beam pattern at 80 degrees steering against a simulation using the true row depth offsets and individual element directivity. If the measured grating-lobe onset is not at 58.2 kHz, or if the measured pattern differs materially from the single-plane uniform-line prediction, the coplanar assumption and the derived onset frequency would be falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At moderate steering angles (e.g., 40 degrees), the main lobe remains dominant up to roughly 70 kHz, with grating lobes appearing above that.
  • At extreme steering (80 degrees), the usable bandwidth ends near 58.2 kHz, the calculated and observed grating-lobe onset.
  • Because the steering law is applied as waveform-agnostic integer delays in the time domain, any waveform (chirp, burst, multisine) can be steered without redesigning the array.
  • The dual-microcontroller, 32-DAC back-end allows beam direction to be reconfigured at runtime over USB, enabling dynamic radiation patterns.
  • The integrated 64-element MEMS microphone receive array positions the system for pulse-echo operation, though the current paper only validates transmission.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A hard bandwidth-steering product follows from the pitch bound: at 80 degrees the usable ceiling is 58.2 kHz, so a design wanting 100 kHz at wide angles must reduce projected pitch below 3.05 mm - for example with the waveguide baffle the authors mention - or accept grating lobes.
  • The integer-sample-delay implementation quantizes each channel's delay to the sample grid; at high frequencies this can add frequency-dependent phase error, so comparing integer-delay steering against fractional-delay or phase-domain steering on the same hardware would be a natural test.
  • The coplanar uniform-line assumption can be checked directly by scanning the 3D positions of the 32 acoustic ports and rerunning the array-factor simulation with true row offsets; measured beam patterns would reveal any phase-center shift at large steering angles.
  • Since the same MEMS speakers radiate down to audible frequencies, the array hardware could also synthesize steerable audible beams or parametric-audio effects, not just ultrasound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ConamArray, a compact 32-element airborne ultrasound transmit array built from USound UA-C0603-3T MEMS speakers in a staggered two-row configuration, with a dual-microcontroller multi-DAC backend for synchronous broadband waveform generation. The authors derive a delay-and-sum steering model, predict a grating-lobe onset of 58.2 kHz from the projected 3.05 mm element spacing, and compare simulated array factors with anechoic-chamber measurements at steering angles of 0°, -40°, and 80° over 20-100 kHz. The claimed contribution is a compact, low-voltage, broadband phased array that achieves main-lobe formation and beam steering, with grating-lobe onset as the main limitation.

Significance. If the validation is sound, the work is a useful demonstration of broadband MEMS-based phased arrays for airborne ultrasound, with potential applications in robotics, imaging, and localization. A clear strength is that the grating-lobe onset is derived from the stated geometry and speed of sound rather than fitted to data, and the hardware architecture with synchronized DACs and runtime waveform control is a practical contribution. However, the experimental validation is currently incomplete: the measurement distance places the upper part of the band in the near field, no quantitative agreement metrics are provided, and the simulation omits element directivity and other physical effects. These issues must be addressed before the central claim of validated broadband steering can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§III-C/§IV-B] The 1.5 m measurement distance is not in the far field for the upper part of the claimed 20–100 kHz band. For a projected aperture D ≈ 95 mm, λ(100 kHz) ≈ 3.4 mm gives D^2/λ ≈ 2.6 m (and the commonly used 2D^2/λ criterion ≈ 5.2 m); at 58.2 kHz it is ≈ 1.5 m. The simulated transmit array factor in §III-A is a plane-wave far-field quantity, so the direct comparison in Fig. 3 is not a valid validation above roughly 60 kHz. The quadratic phase error at 1.5 m can alter grating-lobe and side-lobe levels; please either re-measure at a far-field distance, compare with a near-field model, or explicitly restrict the quantitative claims to frequencies where 1.5 m is far field.
  2. [§IV-B, Fig. 3] The core claim that 'measurements closely match the simulated results' is supported only by visual inspection. No quantitative agreement metric is given: no main-lobe beamwidth error, side-lobe/grating-lobe level difference, normalized RMS error, or correlation coefficient, and no error bars or repeated trials. Please add quantitative comparisons (e.g., frequency-resolved angular error and level errors) and report measurement uncertainty; without these, the validation of the delay-and-sum model is not established.
  3. [§III-A/§IV-A] The simulation treats the 32 elements as identical omnidirectional point sources with x_m≈0 and does not include an element factor. At 100 kHz, λ≈3.4 mm while the transducer diameter is 6 mm (ka≈5.5), so the individual MEMS speaker is not omnidirectional; its directivity, the finite PCB baffle, and any row-depth offset multiply the array factor and affect the measured pattern. The manuscript should specify the actual element positions used in the simulation and provide a measured single-element radiation pattern (or at least a sensitivity analysis) before claiming quantitative agreement.
  4. [§III-A, Eq. (7)] The implementation steers with integer sample delays, but the sampling rate Fs is never stated. The phase error from delay quantization can be large: at Fs=500 kHz the quantization step is 2 µs, which is 72° at 100 kHz. In addition, the grating-lobe onset f < c/(2 d_proj) is evaluated with an implied c ≈ 355 m/s, whereas the standard speed of sound at 20 °C is ≈343 m/s (giving ≈56.2 kHz). Please state Fs, c, and the environmental temperature, and quantify the effect of delay quantization on beam-pointing accuracy across the band.
  5. [§IV-B] The paper does not describe how the measured radiation patterns were obtained from the recorded chirps: no matched-filtering/windowing steps, no angular step size, no normalization procedure, and no statement of which frequency bins are used. Since the central evidence is the comparison in Fig. 3, this missing processing information makes the measurements irreproducible. Please add a detailed processing chain (e.g., deconvolution with the chirp, FFT, normalization per frequency, angular sampling).
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV-A] Typo: 'ddproj = 6.1/2 = 3.05 mm' should be 'd_proj'.
  2. [§I] The speaker is described as covering 2 kHz to 80 kHz, yet the paper claims operation to 100 kHz. Clarify whether the 100 kHz upper limit is a drive/measurement limit rather than the transducer specification.
  3. [§IV-B/Fig. 3] The axes in Fig. 3 are inconsistent ('Azimuth' vs 'Pan Angle'; 'Frequency' vs 'Frequency (kHz)') and the color scale/units are not given. Please make the figure self-contained.
  4. [§IV-B/Fig. 2] The sentence 'significant acoustic output spanning from 100 kHz to 20 kHz' is odd; the chirp is emitted from 100 kHz down to 20 kHz, so the frequency response should be presented with a standard ascending frequency axis and SPL calibration.
  5. [§III-C] The measurement distance is first 'a distance of 1.5 m' and later 'approximately 1.5 m'. Please give the exact distance and state how the microphone was calibrated.
  6. [§III-A, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is a spatial-aliasing condition for the array factor, not a condition on the delay estimates. Please rephrase to avoid confusing spatial aliasing with delay-estimation aliasing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the grating-lobe prediction is analytic and compared against independent measurement.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The grating-lobe onset frequency is obtained analytically from the stated geometry (projected inter-element spacing dproj = 6.1/2 = 3.05 mm) and the speed of sound via Eq. (6), then compared with an array-factor simulation and anechoic measurements. No parameter is fitted to the measured beam patterns, and the 58.2 kHz prediction is not defined in terms of the measured grating-lobe onset; it follows from the physical layout and c. The array-factor simulation is a standard far-field uniform-linear-array model with explicit assumptions (xm ≈ 0, omnidirectional radiators), so it is a genuine prediction rather than a re-statement of the experimental results. The self-citations (e.g., [2], [3], [11], [21]) appear as background on prior biomimetic sonar systems or as suggestions for future waveguide work; none is load-bearing for the central claim that the ConamArray steers broadband ultrasound. The skeptic's concern that the 1.5 m measurement distance is not in the far field above roughly 60 kHz is a validity/correctness issue about whether the experiment realizes the simulated far-field condition, not a circularity: it does not mean the derivation presupposes its own conclusion. Therefore the circularity burden is essentially zero.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard array theory plus assumptions about the physical geometry and the synchronization of the drive electronics. The only free parameters are the unreported sound speed (implied value differs from standard room-temperature speed) and the unreported sampling rate. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Speed of sound c (implied value ~355 m/s) = Not stated; implied by 58.2 kHz and dproj = 3.05 mm
    The grating-lobe onset frequency of 58.2 kHz, together with the stated projected spacing of 3.05 mm, implies c ≈ 355 m/s. The paper does not state the temperature or sound speed used in this calculation.
  • Sampling rate Fs = Not stated
    Equation (7) defines integer sample delays using Fs, but the actual sampling rate is never reported. This value affects delay quantization and the maximum achievable time delay between channels.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Far-field delay-and-sum beamforming model with isotropic point sources
    Equations (1)-(2) assume plane waves and ideal point sources. The element directivity of the MEMS speakers is not modeled, so the simulated transmit array factor ignores element pattern effects.
  • domain assumption All 32 elements lie in the same plane (xm ≈ 0 for all m)
    Section III-A states xm ≈ 0, which is needed to reduce the delay formula to a 1D uniform array. A depth offset between the two rows would add an x-dependent phase and break the simple model.
  • domain assumption The staggered rows produce a uniform projected spacing of dproj = dY/2 along the steering axis
    Section II and equations (4)-(6) rely on this projection to predict grating lobe onset at 58.2 kHz. It holds only for horizontal-plane azimuth steering and assumes the rows are offset by exactly half the inter-element spacing.
  • domain assumption Timer-driven DMA updates maintain phase coherence across all DAC channels
    Section III-B claims that a shared timer and parallel DAC updates ensure precise inter-channel phase control, but no measurement of channel-to-channel phase mismatch or jitter is provided.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ConamArray: A 32-Element Broadband MEMS Ultrasound Transducer Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2SUQV7LA

@misc{pith2026250901372,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ConamArray: A 32-Element Broadband MEMS Ultrasound Transducer Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2SUQV7LA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01372}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

This paper presents the ConamArray, a compact broadband ultrasound transducer array composed of 32 MEMS loudspeakers. Unlike conventional broadband transducers, which are typically large and require high driving voltages, the proposed array combines small form factor MEMS devices in a staggered two-row configuration to enable beam steering across a wide ultrasonic band. A dual-microcontroller back-end with synchronized multi-DAC outputs provides flexible waveform generation and runtime steering control. Both simulations and anechoic chamber measurements demonstrate that the ConamArray achieves stable beam steering, while also revealing the onset of grating lobes when steering to larger angles. These results confirm the feasibility of broadband beam steering using MEMS technology, opening new opportunities for applications in ultrasonic imaging, localization, and bio-inspired robotics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01372 by Dennis Laurijssen, Jan Steckel, Rens Baeyens, Walter Daems.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Both the front-end PCB featuring 32 UA-C0603-3T MEMS speakers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: These plots show a recorded logarithmic chirp from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Results for simulated and measured data at steering angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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

22 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Three-dimensional mid- air acoustic manipulation by ultrasonic phased arrays,

    Y . Ochiai, T. Hoshi, and J. Rekimoto, “Three-dimensional mid- air acoustic manipulation by ultrasonic phased arrays,” PLOS ONE, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1–5, 05 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097590

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097590 2014

  2. [2]

    A flexible low-cost biologically inspired sonar sensor platform for robotic applications,

    D. Laurijssen, R. Kerstens, G. Schouten, W. Daems, and J. Steckel, “A flexible low-cost biologically inspired sonar sensor platform for robotic applications,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2019, pp. 9617–9623

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Batslam: Simultaneous localization and mapping using biomimetic sonar,

    J. Steckel and H. Peremans, “Batslam: Simultaneous localization and mapping using biomimetic sonar,”PLOS ONE, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 01

    work page

  4. [4]

    Spatial sampling strategy for a 3d sonar sensor supporting batslam,

    ——, “Spatial sampling strategy for a 3d sonar sensor supporting batslam,” IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 2015-December, pp. 723–728, 12 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Bioinspired sonar reflectors as guiding beacons for autonomous navigation,

    R. Simon, S. Rupitsch, M. Baumann, H. Wu, H. Peremans, and J. Steckel, “Bioinspired sonar reflectors as guiding beacons for autonomous navigation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 1367–1374, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1909890117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1909890117 2020

  6. [6]

    Ultrasonic device-free localisation system modelling for performance analysis,

    A. Garc ´ıa-Requejo, M. P ´erez-Rubio, A. Hern ´andez, W. Wright, and L. Marnane, “Ultrasonic device-free localisation system modelling for performance analysis,” in 2023 13th International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN) , 2023, pp. 1–7

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Combined infrared-ultrasonic positioning system to improve the data availability,

    E. Aparicio-Esteve, J. Ure ˜na, ´A. Hern ´andez, and J. M. Villadangos, “Combined infrared-ultrasonic positioning system to improve the data availability,” IEEE Sensors Journal , vol. 23, no. 20, pp. 25 152–25 164, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    A 220 khz air-coupled spiral ultrasonic phased array using waveguides,

    C. Haugwitz, F. Krauß, G. Allevato, M. Rutsch, J. H. D ¨orsam, S. Wis- math, S. Soennecken, A. Harth, C. M. Heyl, C. Othmani, S. Merchel, M. E. Altinsoy, T. Hahn-Jose, and M. Kupnik, “A 220 khz air-coupled spiral ultrasonic phased array using waveguides,” IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Joint Symposium, UFFC-JS 2024 - Proceedings, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Single microcon- troller air-coupled waveguided ultrasonic sonar system,

    T. Maier, G. Allevato, M. Rutsch, and M. Kupnik, “Single microcon- troller air-coupled waveguided ultrasonic sonar system,” Proceedings of IEEE Sensors , vol. 2021-October, 2021

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Two-scale sparse spiral array design for 3d ultrasound imaging in air,

    G. Allevato, C. Haugwitz, M. Rutsch, R. M ¨uller, M. Pesavento, and M. Kupnik, “Two-scale sparse spiral array design for 3d ultrasound imaging in air,” IEEE Open Journal of Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 3, pp. 113–127, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    ertis: A fully embedded real time 3d imaging sonar sensor for robotic applications,

    R. Kerstens, D. Laurijssen, and J. Steckel, “ertis: A fully embedded real time 3d imaging sonar sensor for robotic applications,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2019, pp. 1438–1443

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Fl-rtis, a novel multimodal sensor using high-speed camera and active 3-d sonar for insect ensonification,

    J. Steckel, P. R. Parra, A. Aerts, D. Laurijssen, W. Jansen, W. Daems, and J. Barber, “Fl-rtis, a novel multimodal sensor using high-speed camera and active 3-d sonar for insect ensonification,” IEEE Sensors Letters , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–4, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Live demonstration of ertis, an embedded real-time imaging sonar sensor,

    R. Kerstens, G. Schouten, W. Jansen, D. Laurijssen, and J. Steckel, “Live demonstration of ertis, an embedded real-time imaging sonar sensor,” in 2019 IEEE SENSORS . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–1

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    3d point cloud data acquisition using a synchronized in-air imaging sonar sensor network,

    R. Kerstens, D. Laurijssen, G. Schouten, and J. Steckel, “3d point cloud data acquisition using a synchronized in-air imaging sonar sensor network,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2019, pp. 5855–5861

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Emfi based ultrasound transceivers,

    S. Epure, R. Belea, and D. Aiordachioaie, “Emfi based ultrasound transceivers,” in 2010 IEEE 16th International Symposium for Design and Technology in Electronic Packaging (SIITME) , 2010, pp. 117–122

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    Single-step 3d printing of flexible ferroelectret sensors with large air cavities,

    A. A. Altmann, S. Suppelt, O. Ben Dali, B. Latsch, D. Spiehl, S. Zhukov, F. Herbst, J. H. D ¨orsam, A. Blaeser, and M. Kupnik, “Single-step 3d printing of flexible ferroelectret sensors with large air cavities,” in 2024 IEEE SENSORS , 2024, pp. 1–4

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Acoustical sensitivity and linearity of an air-coupled 3d-printed ferroelectret ultrasonic receiver,

    S. Suppelt, A. A. Altmann, S. Schaumann, N. Demuth, M. M ¨uller, L. E. Jazdzewski, T. E. G ´omez ´Alvarez Arenas, C. Bretthauer, A. Bittner, and M. Kupnik, “Acoustical sensitivity and linearity of an air-coupled 3d-printed ferroelectret ultrasonic receiver,” in 2024 IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Joint Symposium (UFFC-JS) , 2024, pp. 1–4

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Monolithic wideband air-coupled ultrasonic transducer based on additively manufactured ferroelectrets,

    A. A. Altmann, S. Suppelt, M. Ruhl, S. Schaumann, B. Latsch, O. Ben Dali, S. Zhukov, D. Flachs, X. Zhang, C. Thielemann, H. V on Seggern, and M. Kupnik, “Monolithic wideband air-coupled ultrasonic transducer based on additively manufactured ferroelectrets,” in 2024 IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Joint Symposium (UFFC-JS) , 2024, pp. 1–4

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Air-coupled 40-khz ultrasonic 2d-phased array based on a 3d-printed waveguide structure,

    A. J ¨ager, D. Großkurth, M. Rutsch, A. Unger, R. Golinske, H. Wang, S. Dixon, K. Hofmann, and M. Kupnik, “Air-coupled 40-khz ultrasonic 2d-phased array based on a 3d-printed waveguide structure,” in 2017 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–4

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Wave propagation in an acoustic waveguide for ultrasonic phased arrays,

    M. Rutsch, A. J ¨ager, A. Unger, T. Kaindl, and M. Kupnik, “Wave propagation in an acoustic waveguide for ultrasonic phased arrays,” in 2019 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 796–799

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    Broadband mems microphone arrays with reduced aperture through 3d-printed waveguides,

    D. Laurijssen, W. Daems, and J. Steckel, “Broadband mems microphone arrays with reduced aperture through 3d-printed waveguides,” in 2024 IEEE SENSORS . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–4

    work page 2024

  22. [2013]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054076

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054076

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054076

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.