Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

A microfluidic lens turns one ultrasound transducer into a reconfigurable 400-pixel focusing system.

2026-07-08 19:37 UTC pith:WBYVRMPY

load-bearing objection Real soft microfluidic lens with honest sqrt(N) control scaling; the “comparable to a 400-element array” claim overreaches because binary row+column phase cannot make non-separable wavefronts. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05867 v1 pith:WBYVRMPY submitted 2026-07-07 physics.app-ph

Shape Ultrasound with Dynamic Microfluidic Lenses

Dajun Zhang , Hyunji Shim , Michael Ferolito , Feng Ye , Hongrui Jiang , Chu Ma This is my paper
classification physics.app-ph
keywords microfluidic ultrasound lensbinary phase modulationacoustic focusingsingle-element transducerreconfigurable acoustic fieldmicropump arrayultrasound heatingparticle manipulation
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.

This paper argues that two orthogonal layers of soft microfluidic channels, each selectively filled with one of two liquids of different sound speeds, can impose programmable binary phase patterns on ultrasound from a single-element transducer. Built as a 20-by-20 grid driven by 80 micropumps under FPGA control, the lens produces three-dimensional focusing with roughly one-second reconfiguration and spatial resolution the authors report as comparable to a 400-element phased array, while hardware complexity scales only with the square root of the number of addressable pixels. A sympathetic reader cares because conventional dynamic ultrasound shaping either freezes the field with a fixed lens or multiplies electronics, cost, and rigidity with every independent element. The soft liquid architecture is further claimed to keep transmission loss low, remain stable under high acoustic power, and work across ultrasound frequencies, enabling demonstrations of dynamic heating, remote particle manipulation, and a cylindrical variant that shapes the field azimuthally.

Core claim

A 20-row-by-20-column microfluidic ultrasound lens integrated with a single-element transducer achieves three-dimensional ultrasound focusing with approximately one-second reconfiguration time and spatial resolution comparable to that of a 400-element transducer array, while providing 400 addressable pixels through parallel control of only 80 pumps so hardware complexity scales with the square root of pixel count.

What carries the argument

Two orthogonal layers of soft microfluidic channels that each hold one of two liquids with distinct sound speeds. Selective filling of whole rows and whole columns creates a binary phase-delay map across a 20×20 pixel grid; the combination of the two binary choices synthesizes the spatial phase pattern that steers and focuses the transmitted ultrasound wavefront.

Load-bearing premise

That binary phase delays set only by entire rows and entire columns, without continuous per-pixel phase or amplitude control, are enough to produce focusing quality and spatial resolution truly comparable to a fully independent 400-element phased array.

What would settle it

Under the same drive frequency and amplitude, measure focal-spot width, side-lobe level, and peak pressure of the microfluidic lens against a same-aperture 400-element electronic phased array; if the microfluidic focus is substantially broader, weaker, or more distorted, the array-comparable claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Three-dimensional focusing and pattern switching become available from a single transducer without a multi-channel driver stack.
  • Pump count grows only with the square root of addressable acoustic pixels, easing scaling to larger apertures.
  • The same platform supports dynamic ultrasound heating and remote particle manipulation by rewriting the phase map in about one second.
  • A cylindrical microfluidic geometry can shape ultrasound in the azimuthal direction beyond planar focusing.
  • The liquid-based soft architecture is claimed to keep acoustic transmission loss low and remain stable under high acoustic power across ultrasound frequencies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If binary row–column phase control is sufficient for mid-resolution focusing, many ultrasound therapy and acoustic-tweezers systems could drop from hundreds of drivers to tens of pumps, changing cost and form-factor limits for portable devices.
  • The roughly one-second reconfiguration time suits slowly varying tasks such as heating maps or particle assembly more than real-time imaging, suggesting hybrid systems that keep a conventional array for fast axes.
  • Replacing the two-liquid binary choice with multi-level sound speeds or continuous fill fractions would test whether the binary limit is fundamental or only the first convenient implementation.
  • Because the lens is soft and liquid-based, conformal mounting on curved surfaces or integration into flexible medical tools is a natural engineering path left open by the work.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a reconfigurable microfluidic ultrasound lens formed by two orthogonal layers of soft channels that are selectively filled with one of two liquids of different sound speeds. Binary phase patterns are programmed by an FPGA-driven micropump array. A 20×20 device integrated with a single-element transducer is reported to produce three-dimensional foci with ~1 s reconfiguration, spatial resolution claimed to be comparable to a 400-element phased array, and 400 addressable pixels controlled by only 80 pumps (hardware scaling as the square root of pixel count). Demonstrations include dynamic heating, remote particle manipulation, and a cylindrical lens variant. The soft liquid architecture is argued to provide low transmission loss, high-power stability, and frequency scalability.

Significance. If the performance and scaling claims hold under rigorous comparison, the work would be a meaningful contribution to ultrasound field control. Reducing drive complexity from O(N²) independent channels to O(N) pumps while retaining useful focusing and application-level functionality would lower cost and rigidity relative to conventional phased arrays. The soft, liquid-based construction and reported high-power tolerance are additional practical strengths. The paper is an experimental device contribution rather than a theoretical derivation; its value therefore rests on the quality of the acoustic characterization and on whether the separable binary architecture is shown to be adequate for the claimed tasks.

major comments (4)
  1. The abstract and main claims equate the 20×20 microfluidic lens to a 400-element phased array on spatial resolution and 3-D focusing. Architecturally each pixel phase is constrained to the separable binary form φ_ij = r_i + c_j with r_i, c_j ∈ {0, Δφ}. Ideal spherical/Fresnel focusing phases (and most multi-focus or steered patterns) are not members of this outer-product family. The manuscript must therefore state explicitly which wavefronts are synthesizable, quantify focusing efficiency and sidelobe levels for the demonstrated foci, and define what “comparable to a 400-element array” means (aperture-limited FWHM alone is insufficient). Without side-by-side metrics against a true 400-channel continuous-phase (or at least full per-pixel binary) reference under identical aperture and frequency, the central performance and scaling claims remain overstated.
  2. Related to the separability limit: the paper should report off-axis and multi-focus performance, not only on-axis spot size. If only on-axis FWHM is shown, the reader cannot judge whether the device retains usable field quality once the target leaves the optical axis or when multiple foci are requested. These data are load-bearing for the claim that the platform can replace or approach array functionality in the demonstrated applications (heating, particle manipulation).
  3. Acoustic power handling and transmission loss are asserted as advantages of the liquid architecture, yet the abstract and framing do not indicate quantitative insertion-loss spectra, heating under continuous high-intensity drive, or cavitation thresholds relative to a bare transducer or a conventional solid lens. These measurements are needed to substantiate the “stable performance under high acoustic power” claim that underpins the heating and manipulation demonstrations.
  4. Reconfiguration time is given as approximately one second. For the heating and particle-manipulation applications this may be acceptable, but the manuscript should clarify the dominant bottleneck (fluid exchange volume, pump flow rate, residual mixing, or acoustic settling) and whether partial or multi-step fills can reduce latency. Without that analysis the “dynamic” qualifier remains loosely supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. Define the binary phase step Δφ (intended half-wave or otherwise) and the two liquid sound speeds and densities at the operating frequency early in the methods or results, so the reader can reconstruct the expected phase contrast and impedance mismatch.
  2. Clarify channel geometry (width, depth, wall thickness, inter-layer registration tolerance) and how acoustic cross-talk or diffraction within the microfluidic stack is bounded.
  3. When claiming “400 addressable pixels,” distinguish addressable binary outer-product patterns (~2^40 structured masks) from the 2^400 patterns of a true per-pixel binary array; the wording currently invites over-interpretation.
  4. Provide hydrophone scan parameters (step size, bandwidth, calibration) and any simulation methods used to generate target phase maps so that resolution and sidelobe numbers can be reproduced.
  5. The cylindrical-lens demonstration is mentioned only briefly in the abstract; ensure the main text gives the corresponding channel layout, measured field, and a clear statement of what azimuthal control is gained relative to the Cartesian 20×20 device.
  6. Minor wording: “spatial resolution comparable to that of a 400-element transducer array” should be replaced by a precise metric (e.g., FWHM, peak-to-sidelobe ratio, focusing efficiency) once the comparison data are added.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive evaluation. The comments correctly identify where our claims about array-comparable performance, field quality beyond on-axis foci, power handling, and reconfiguration dynamics need tighter definition and additional data. We agree that the separable binary architecture is not a drop-in substitute for a full continuous-phase array, and we will revise the abstract, framing, and results to state synthesizable wavefronts explicitly, add quantitative focusing metrics, and supply the missing acoustic and temporal characterization. Below we respond point by point and indicate the corresponding manuscript changes.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract and main claims equate the 20×20 microfluidic lens to a 400-element phased array on spatial resolution and 3-D focusing. Architecturally each pixel phase is constrained to the separable binary form φ_ij = r_i + c_j with r_i, c_j ∈ {0, Δφ}. Ideal spherical/Fresnel focusing phases (and most multi-focus or steered patterns) are not members of this outer-product family. The manuscript must therefore state explicitly which wavefronts are synthesizable, quantify focusing efficiency and sidelobe levels for the demonstrated foci, and define what “comparable to a 400-element array” means (aperture-limited FWHM alone is insufficient). Without side-by-side metrics against a true 400-channel continuous-phase (or at least full per-pixel binary) reference under identical aperture and frequency, the central performance and scaling claims remain overstated.

    Authors: We agree that the present wording overstates the comparison. The architecture realizes only separable binary phases φ_ij = r_i + c_j (mod 2π after the two-liquid path difference), so ideal spherical/Fresnel and most multi-focus or steered continuous-phase patterns are not members of this family. In revision we will (i) replace the abstract and introduction claims of “comparable to a 400-element array” with a precise statement that the device provides 400 addressable binary pixels under an O(N) pump count and that the demonstrated on-axis foci achieve aperture-limited FWHM comparable to a same-aperture continuous-phase focus under the same frequency and aperture; (ii) add an explicit subsection defining the synthesizable set (outer-product binary patterns and the cylindrical/row- or column-only subsets) and the approximation used for focusing (binary Fresnel-like row and column masks chosen to minimize residual phase error on axis); (iii) report focusing efficiency (on-axis intensity relative to a bare transducer and to a simulated continuous-phase reference of identical aperture) and measured sidelobe levels for the demonstrated foci; and (iv) include a side-by-side numerical comparison of the separable binary pattern versus a full per-pixel binary and a continuous-phase 400-element reference under identical aperture and frequency, so that the performance gap is quantified rather than asserted. These changes will keep the scaling advantage (80 pumps for 400 pixels) while removing any implication of full array equivalence. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Related to the separability limit: the paper should report off-axis and multi-focus performance, not only on-axis spot size. If only on-axis FWHM is shown, the reader cannot judge whether the device retains usable field quality once the target leaves the optical axis or when multiple foci are requested. These data are load-bearing for the claim that the platform can replace or approach array functionality in the demonstrated applications (heating, particle manipulation).

    Authors: The referee is correct that on-axis FWHM alone is insufficient. The current manuscript emphasizes on-axis three-dimensional foci and the cylindrical (azimuthal) variant; off-axis and multi-focus data are limited. We will add measured and simulated field maps for (i) foci steered off axis within the separable binary constraint (by shifting the row/column binary Fresnel patterns) and (ii) dual-focus patterns that remain expressible as outer products (e.g., two foci sharing a common row or column structure). We will report FWHM, peak intensity relative to the on-axis case, and sidelobe structure for these configurations, and we will state clearly which multi-focus geometries are and are not synthesizable. For the heating and particle-manipulation demonstrations we will note that the trajectories used remain within the synthesizable set and will add brief field characterization at the working points so that application-level field quality is documented. Where a desired pattern is not separable we will not claim array-like multi-focus capability. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Acoustic power handling and transmission loss are asserted as advantages of the liquid architecture, yet the abstract and framing do not indicate quantitative insertion-loss spectra, heating under continuous high-intensity drive, or cavitation thresholds relative to a bare transducer or a conventional solid lens. These measurements are needed to substantiate the “stable performance under high acoustic power” claim that underpins the heating and manipulation demonstrations.

    Authors: We agree that the power-handling and low-loss claims require quantitative support. In revision we will add: (i) insertion-loss spectra of the filled microfluidic lens versus a bare transducer and versus a representative solid (e.g., PDMS or acrylic) lens of comparable thickness over the operating band; (ii) continuous-wave drive tests reporting transducer and lens surface temperature rise and transmitted intensity stability over the durations used in the heating experiments; and (iii) a cavitation-threshold comparison (passive cavitation detection or broadband noise onset) for the lens-loaded versus bare transducer under the same free-field conditions. These data will replace qualitative assertions in the abstract and discussion with measured values and will clarify the regime in which the liquid architecture remains stable. If any of the high-power claims cannot be fully quantified with the existing setup, we will narrow the wording accordingly. revision: yes

  4. Referee: Reconfiguration time is given as approximately one second. For the heating and particle-manipulation applications this may be acceptable, but the manuscript should clarify the dominant bottleneck (fluid exchange volume, pump flow rate, residual mixing, or acoustic settling) and whether partial or multi-step fills can reduce latency. Without that analysis the “dynamic” qualifier remains loosely supported.

    Authors: We agree that the ~1 s figure needs mechanistic support. Reconfiguration time is dominated by the volume exchange required to switch channel contents (channel volume and micropump flow rate), with a smaller contribution from residual mixing at the liquid interface; acoustic settling after the fluid state is fixed is negligible on this timescale. In revision we will report measured fill times versus commanded flow rate, channel volume, and number of channels switched, identify the dominant term, and discuss partial or multi-step fills (e.g., updating only the subset of rows/columns that change between successive patterns) as a route to lower latency for incremental pattern updates. We will also state the practical range of reconfiguration times for full versus partial updates so that the “dynamic” claim is tied to measured bottlenecks rather than a single approximate number. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: experimental device paper whose performance claims are measured, not recovered by construction from fitted inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is an experimental applied-physics / device paper, not a first-principles derivation that fits constants and then re-presents them as predictions. The load-bearing claims—three-dimensional focusing with a 20×20 microfluidic lens on a single-element transducer, ~1 s reconfiguration, spatial resolution stated as comparable to a 400-element array, dynamic heating, and remote particle manipulation—are empirical outcomes of building and characterizing a physical system. The orthogonal two-layer channel architecture that yields 400 addressable pixels from 80 pumps is an intentional hardware design (row/column binary phase φ_ij = r_i + c_j); its focusing quality is then measured rather than assumed equal to a full phased array by definition. No equation recovers a fitted parameter as a “prediction,” no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ prior work to forbid alternatives, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. Any residual concern that binary separable phase cannot match continuous 400-element focusing quality (efficiency, sidelobes, off-axis fidelity) is a correctness or benchmarking issue, not circularity under the stated criteria. Score 0 is therefore the honest finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only audit. The work rests on standard acoustics (phase delay from path sound-speed contrast) and microfluidics domain practice, plus design choices of binary two-liquid filling and separable row/column addressing. No new particles or forces are invented. Free parameters in the fitting sense are not claimed; liquids, channel geometry, and pump timing are engineering design variables whose values are not given here. Invented-entity count is zero. Full paper would likely list specific liquids and geometric dimensions as fixed design inputs rather than fitted scientific constants.

free parameters (2)
  • binary liquid pair sound speeds (and channel fill states)
    Two liquids with distinct sound speeds define the available phase contrast; their identities and Δc are design choices that set achievable phase steps. Values not stated in the abstract; not a statistical fit to a scientific constant, but the system performance depends on this choice.
  • channel geometry and layer thickness (optical path / acoustic path length)
    Acoustic phase delay δφ = 2π f Δ(1/c)·L depends on path length L and frequency; these are chosen by fabrication and are not reported numerically in the abstract.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Sound speed contrast between two immiscible (or switchable) liquids in microfluidic channels produces controllable binary acoustic phase delays with acceptable transmission loss.
    Core physical premise of the lens; standard wave acoustics applied to liquid-filled channels. Invoked throughout the abstract mechanism description.
  • ad hoc to paper Separable row-and-column binary phase patterns (outer product structure) are adequate to synthesize the demonstrated 3D foci and application fields.
    The orthogonal two-layer architecture can only realize phase maps of a constrained (rank-1 / separable binary) family, not arbitrary 20×20 binary maps. Adequacy for 'array-comparable' focusing is a paper-specific modeling/design assumption.
  • domain assumption FPGA-controlled micropump array can fill/empty channels fast enough for ~1 s reconfiguration without residual bubbles or mixing that destroy the phase pattern.
    Operational premise for dynamic use; standard microfluidics reliability assumptions, not proved in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 6365 in / 3056 out tokens · 55849 ms · 2026-07-08T19:37:52.941714+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dynamic shaping of ultrasound into prescribed spatial patterns underlies a broad range of biomedical and engineering applications. However, existing modulation strategies face fundamental limitations: single element transducers paired with acoustic lenses lack reconfigurability, whereas phased arrays require large numbers of independently driven elements, leading to substantial hardware complexity, cost, and rigidity. Here we introduce a microfluidic ultrasound lens system that enables reconfigurable spatial modulation of ultrasonic fields using two orthogonal layers of soft microfluidic channels. Each channel is selectively filled with one of two liquids with distinct sound speeds via an FPGA controlled array of micropumps, generating programmable binary phase patterns. Integrating a 20-row-by-20-column microfluidic lens with a single element transducer, we demonstrate three-dimensional ultrasound focusing with approximately one second reconfiguration time and spatial resolution comparable to that of a 400-element transducer array. The system provides 400 addressable pixels through parallel control of 80 pumps, allowing hardware complexity to scale with the square root of the pixel count. Building on this platform, we demonstrate dynamic ultrasound heating, as well as remote particle manipulation. Furthermore, we demonstrate a cylindrical lens that manipulates ultrasound propagation in the azimuthal direction. Owing to its liquid based, soft architecture, the microfluidic lens offers design flexibility, scalable operation across ultrasound frequencies, low acoustic transmission loss, and stable performance under high acoustic power. Together, these results establish microfluidic phase modulation as a compact, scalable, and flexible approach for dynamic ultrasound field control.

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

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Lee, H

    Jo, Y., Kim, S., Jeong, J. & Lee, H. J. Ultrasound brain stimulation technologies for targeted therapeutics. Nat Electron 8, 647–662 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    O’Reilly, M. A. Exploiting the mechanical effects of ultrasound for noninvasive therapy. Science 385, eadp7206 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    & Babyn, P

    Izadifar, Z., Izadifar, Z., Chapman, D. & Babyn, P. An Introduction to High Intensity Focused Ultrasound: Systematic Review on Principles, Devices, and Clinical Applications. JCM 9, 460 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    High intensity focused ultrasound in clinical tumor ablation

    Zhou, Y.-F. High intensity focused ultrasound in clinical tumor ablation. WJCO 2, 8 (2011). 15

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    L., Vlaisavljevich, E

    Xu, Z., Hall, T. L., Vlaisavljevich, E. & Lee, F. T. Histotripsy: the first noninvasive, non-ionizing, non-thermal ablation technique based on ultrasound. International Journal of Hyperthermia 38, 561–575 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Tufail, Y., Yoshihiro, A., Pati, S., Li, M. M. & Tyler, W. J. Ultrasonic neuromodulation by brain stimulation with transcranial ultrasound. Nat Protoc 6, 1453–1470 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Yang, Y. et al. Induction of a torpor-like hypothermic and hypometabolic state in rodents by ultrasound. Nat Metab 5, 789–803 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Lu, G. et al. Noninvasive imaging-guided ultrasonic neurostimulation with arbitrary 2D patterns and its application for high-quality vision restoration. Nat Commun 15, 4481 (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Bansal, A. et al. Role of Ultrasound-Based Therapies in Cardiovascular Diseases. Structural Heart 9, 100349 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    P., Hata, A., Crum, L

    Nazer, B., Gerstenfeld, E. P., Hata, A., Crum, L. A. & Matula, T. J. Cardiovascular applications of therapeutic ultrasound. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 39, 287–294 (2014)

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Gong, C. et al. A wearable non-invasive sonogenetic pacemaker. Nature Biomedical Engineering https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-026-01673-z (2026) doi:10.1038/s41551-026-01673-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41551-026-01673-z 2026

  12. [12]

    & Chen, H

    Ye, D., Chukwu, C., Yang, Y., Hu, Z. & Chen, H. Adeno-associated virus vector delivery to the brain: Technology advancements and clinical applications. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 211, 115363 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Abrahao, A. et al. First-in-human trial of blood–brain barrier opening in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using MR-guided focused ultrasound. Nat Commun 10, 4373 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Chen, K.-T. et al. Neuronavigation-guided focused ultrasound for transcranial blood-brain barrier opening and immunostimulation in brain tumors. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd0772 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    & Willmann, J

    Mullick Chowdhury, S., Lee, T. & Willmann, J. K. Ultrasound-guided drug delivery in cancer. Ultrasonography 36, 171–184 (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Purohit, M. P. et al. Acoustically activatable liposomes as a translational nanotechnology for site-targeted drug delivery and noninvasive neuromodulation. Nat. Nanotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-025-01990-5 (2025) doi:10.1038/s41565-025-01990-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41565-025-01990-5 2025

  17. [17]

    Tang, S. et al. Enzymatic microbubble robots. Nat. Nanotechnol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-025-02109-6 (2026) doi:10.1038/s41565-025-02109-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41565-025-02109-6 2026

  18. [18]

    Shah, A. et al. Novel ultrasound method to reposition kidney stones. Urol Res 38, 491–495 (2010). 16

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    M., Isarria‐Marcosy, M

    Moreno‐Moraga, J., Valero‐Altés, T., Riquelme, A. M., Isarria‐Marcosy, M. I. & De La Torre, J. R. Body contouring by non‐invasive transdermal focused ultrasound. Lasers Surg Med 39, 315–323 (2007)

    work page 2007

  20. [20]

    G., Qiu, T

    Melde, K., Mark, A. G., Qiu, T. & Fischer, P. Holograms for acoustics. Nature 537, 518–522 (2016)

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Shi, Z. et al. Ultrasound-driven programmable artificial muscles. Nature 646, 1096–1104 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Melde, K. et al. Compact holographic sound fields enable rapid one-step assembly of matter in 3D. Sci. Adv. 9, eadf6182 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Kuang, X. et al. Self-enhancing sono-inks enable deep-penetration acoustic volumetric printing. Science 382, 1148–1155 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Piech, D. K. et al. A wireless millimetre-scale implantable neural stimulator with ultrasonically powered bidirectional communication. Nat Biomed Eng 4, 207–222 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    & Subramanian, S

    Hirayama, R., Martinez Plasencia, D., Masuda, N. & Subramanian, S. A volumetric display for visual, tactile and audio presentation using acoustic trapping. Nature 575, 320–323 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Hu, H. et al. A wearable cardiac ultrasound imager. Nature 613, 667–675 (2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    Zhou, S. et al. Transcranial volumetric imaging using a conformal ultrasound patch. Nature 629, 810–818 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    & Ritsch‐Marte, M

    Maurer, C., Jesacher, A., Bernet, S. & Ritsch‐Marte, M. What spatial light modulators can do for optical microscopy. Laser & Photonics Reviews 5, 81–101 (2011)

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    & Zhang, C

    Zhao, S.-D., Chen, A.-L., Wang, Y.-S. & Zhang, C. Continuously Tunable Acoustic Metasurface for Transmitted Wavefront Modulation. Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 054066 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Tian, Z. et al. Programmable Acoustic Metasurfaces. Adv Funct Materials 29, 1808489 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Zhang, C. et al. A reconfigurable active acoustic metalens. Applied Physics Letters 118, 133502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Zhang, Z. et al. Programming Reflected and Transmitted Sound Behaviors Based on Motor-Driven Digital Metasurface. Adv. Funct. Mater. 34, 2411403 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    & Chen, H

    Hu, Z., Yang, Y., Xu, L., Hao, Y. & Chen, H. Binary acoustic metasurfaces for dynamic focusing of transcranial ultrasound. Front. Neurosci. 16, 984953 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Zhou, Y. et al. Orbital angular momentum- and frequency-dependent high-capacity encrypted hologram through multi-dimensional multiplexing acoustic metasurface. Nat Commun 16, 11692 (2025). 17

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Zhang, M. et al. Reconfigurable dynamic acoustic holography with acoustically transparent and programmable metamaterial. Nat Commun 16, 9126 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Ma, Z. et al. Spatial ultrasound modulation by digitally controlling microbubble arrays. Nat Commun 11, 4537 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Ozcelik, A. et al. Acoustic tweezers for the life sciences. Nat Methods 15, 1021–1028 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Yang, S. et al. Harmonic acoustics for dynamic and selective particle manipulation. Nat. Mater. 21, 540–546 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Zhao, S. et al. Topological acoustofluidics. Nat. Mater. 24, 707–715 (2025). Methods Details of the fabrication procedures for the 1D, 2D row –column, cylindrical, and holographic lenses are provided in Supplementary Note 1. The system architecture, including the FPGA, driving electronics, and graphical user interface, is described in Suppl ementary Note ...

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    V”-shaped hologram lens. c. Simulated ultrasound field intensity at the focal plane (𝑧= 30 mm) corresponding to the “V

    The limited spectrum bandwidth leads to a focal spot main peak width of: 𝑅 = 2𝜋 𝑘௫ ,௠௔௫ = max{𝑑, 𝜆 2} Here the main peak width is defined as half of the zero-crossing width of the main peak. c. Limit due to finite lens aperture: 22 Assume the overall size of the lens aperture is 𝐷, the wavelength is 𝜆, and the distance between the lens and the focal spot ...

    work page

  41. [41]

    Hamilton, E. L. Sound Velocity, Elasticity, and Related Properties of Marine Sediments, North Pacific: Elasticity and Elastic Constants. (Department of Navy, Naval Undersea Research and Development Center, Ocean Sciences Department, 1969)

    work page 1969

  42. [42]

    & Page, J

    Tallon, B., Brunet, T., Leng, J. & Page, J. H. Energy velocity of multiply scattered waves in strongly scattering media. Phys. Rev. B 101, 054202 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    & Yeh, C.-S

    Chen, P.-C., Chen, L.-T. & Yeh, C.-S. Tunable microlens array fabricated by a silicone oil- induced swelled polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) membrane bonded to a micro-milled microfluidic chip. Opt. Express 28, 29815 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    T., Zhang, C., Gupta, M

    Riche, C. T., Zhang, C., Gupta, M. & Malmstadt, N. Fluoropolymer surface coatings to control droplets in microfluidic devices. Lab Chip 14, 1834–1841 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [45]

    A., Oh, S

    Lee, S. A., Oh, S. H. & Lee, W. The effect of direct fluorination of polydimethylsiloxane films on their surface properties. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 332, 461–466 (2009)

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    & Shimobaba, T

    Matsushima, K. & Shimobaba, T. Band-limited angular spectrum method for numerical simulation of free-space propagation in far and near fields. Opt. Express 17, 19662 (2009)

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    Goodman, J. W. Introduction to Fourier Optics. (1969)

    work page 1969

  48. [48]

    G., Qiu, T

    Melde, K., Mark, A. G., Qiu, T. & Fischer, P. Holograms for acoustics. Nature 537, 518–522 (2016). 37 Description of supplementary videos

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Filling pattern switch inside a single-layer lens

    work page

  50. [50]

    Filling pattern switch inside a double-layer row-column lens

    work page

  51. [51]

    Fluid switching inside the Y-shaped connector

    work page

  52. [52]

    Dynamic particle manipulation

    work page

  53. [53]

    Progressive formation of a W-shaped pattern via programmable ultrasonic heating (infrared thermal video)

    work page

  54. [54]

    V” and “W

    Dynamic ultrasonic heating pattern transition between “V” and “W” (infrared thermal video)

    work page