Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 60 references

Near-field acoustic imaging with a caged bubble

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A gas bubble confined in a 3D-printed cage can image underwater structures with resolution two orders of magnitude below the acoustic wavelength.

desk verdict Caged-bubble near-field acoustic imaging is experimentally convincing and new; the quantitative theory fits have free parameters, but the imaging claim itself stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18386 v1 pith:ABM4DTZJ submitted 2024-11-27 physics.app-ph physics.ins-det

Dorian Bouchet , Olivier Stephan , Benjamin Dollet , Philippe Marmottant , Emmanuel Bossy This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phphysics.ins-det
keywords near-fieldacousticmicroscopysinglebubblecagedresonancefrequencyshiftsub-wavelengthimagingMinnaertsuper-resolutionscanningprobe
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Scanning near-field acoustic microscopy usually lacks a convenient sub-wavelength probe. This paper shows that a single resonating air bubble, held in a 3D-printed hydrophobic cage, can serve as one: as the cage is scanned near a sample, the bubble's resonance frequency and scattering amplitude respond to the local acoustic environment. From those responses the authors reconstruct images of engraved steel and air-filled features with details as small as 3~mm, about 250 times smaller than the 1.9~kHz acoustic wavelength ($\lambda/250$). The method is an acoustic analogue of scanning near-field optical microscopy and, because a gas bubble in water is always much smaller than the acoustic wavelength, it is claimed to be scalable from millimetric bubbles to micrometre probes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the caged bubble: a cubic air bubble trapped by surface tension inside a hydrophobic 3D-printed cage, whose volume oscillations give a sharp Lorentzian resonance near the Minnaert frequency $f_0 = c_g\sqrt{3\rho_g/\rho_l}/(\pi d_0)$. The load-bearing identity is the exact two-bubble frequency formula used via the method of images, which gives the resonance frequency of one bubble near a rigid (Neumann) or free (Dirichlet) interface. The imaging pipeline subtracts a reference measurement without the bubble to obtain the normalized scattering amplitude, fits a Lorentzian to its power spectrum, and maps either the spectral intensity at a chosen frequency or the fitted central frequency. Finite-difference time-domain simulations of a cubic bubble in a finite tank, with the cage neglected, justify using an effective spherical diameter and show that the near-field pressure pattern is essentially that of two monopoles.

What would settle it

Scan the same three-line test sample with cages of identical trapped-air volume but different pillar thickness or cage material: if the measured frequency-shift profile, or the cutoff spatial frequency $\xi$, changes systematically with cage design, then the cage contributes to the image contrast and the claimed bubble-limited resolution is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that measuring the resonance of a single caged bubble while scanning it in the near field of a structured sample gives super-resolved acoustic images without contact. For a bubble facing a stiff steel wall the resonance frequency decreases as the bubble approaches; for a water–air interface it increases, and both trends match an exact two-bubble image formula, Eq. (2), written as $f_\pm/f_0 = \sqrt{\sum_{n=0}^\infty (\mp 1)^n \sinh(\beta)/\sinh[(n+1)\beta]}$ with $\cosh(\beta)=2z/d_0$. Using intensity imaging and central-frequency imaging, the authors reconstruct an engraved Eiffel tower and the letters “SNAM”, distinguishing steel, water, and trapped air by their opposite frequency shifts. A Fourier-ring-correlation-type analysis of line scans over three grooves shows that the transverse resolution $R$ grows linearly with standoff $z$, reaching about 3~mm at $z = 2.5$~mm, i.e., $\lambda/250$, limited by the bubble size rather than by diffraction.

Load-bearing premise

The images are read as the bubble alone reacting to the sample, which assumes that the plastic cage holding the bubble does not itself change the measured resonance shifts; the simulations behind this interpretation omit the cage, and the paper notes that the cage may add non-radiative damping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Acoustic imaging resolution would no longer be set by diffraction: the probe resolves roughly its own size, so shrinking the cage toward micrometre scale should give micrometre resolution at MHz frequencies with comparatively cheap electronics.
  • The same probe gives material contrast, since resonance frequency shifts in opposite directions near stiff and pressure-release boundaries, allowing steel, water, and trapped air to be distinguished in one scan.
  • Multispectral intensity images invert contrast with frequency, so recording the full resonance spectrum at each point provides a local spectral fingerprint rather than a single scalar map.
  • Measuring radiative linewidth variations, currently masked by non-radiative damping, would give access to the local density of acoustic states, extending the optical analogue to acoustic Purcell-type effects.
  • Because the bubble can be scanned in three dimensions and multiple bubbles can be caged, the method opens a route to probing multiple scattering and cooperative emission in acoustic metamaterials.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the cage is the main source of non-radiative damping, as the paper suspects, then redesigning the cage (thinner pillars, different resin) could raise the quality factor and expose weak radiative-linewidth contrasts; this is testable before any micro-fabrication.
  • The linear dependence $R \propto z$ implies that the practical bottleneck for micrometre resolution is standoff control; at small scales, maintaining a stable air pocket and a precise, close scan may set the achievable resolution rather than the electronics.
  • One could test the contrast mechanism on soft viscoelastic samples: because the frequency shift reflects local acoustic impedance, a caged bubble scanned over a gel of varying stiffness should map shear-modulus variations, extending the method beyond hard/air boundaries.
  • The multispectral inversion of contrast suggests a spectral unmixing strategy: acquiring intensities at several frequencies and fitting the bubble's full Lorentzian response at each pixel could separate topography from material properties in a single scan.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a scanning near-field acoustic microscope based on a single air bubble confined in a 3D-printed cubic cage. The authors excite the bubble acoustically, record the scattered field, and extract its resonance frequency and amplitude from Lorentzian fits. They show that the resonance frequency decreases near a steel (Neumann) interface and increases near an air (Dirichlet) interface, with distance dependences consistent with the Morioka two-bubble formula after fitting an effective diameter and a zero-distance offset. They then raster-scan the caged bubble above engraved steel samples and reconstruct intensity and central-frequency images in which features of about 3 mm are resolved, approximately lambda/250. A Fourier-ring-correlation-inspired analysis of line scans yields a resolution that degrades linearly with standoff distance.

Significance. If the central mechanism holds, the work is significant: it demonstrates a simple, low-cost, mechanically scanned acoustic probe with deeply subwavelength resolution, analogous to aperture-type scanning near-field optical microscopy, and it offers material contrast through the sign and magnitude of the resonance shift. The paper is strengthened by direct measurements, a quantitative FRC-based resolution metric, and public deposition of data and processing scripts. The main reservation is that the supporting FDTD model neglects the cage, so the quantitative attribution of the frequency-shift contrast to the bubble alone is not fully validated. The imaging demonstration itself is convincing, but the physical interpretation needs an explicit test of the cage contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods (FDTD simulations); Discussion] The FDTD simulations that support the quantitative interpretation model only water and air and explicitly state that 'the cage itself was neglected,' while the Discussion states that the cage likely contributes to the measured non-radiative damping. During imaging the cage is only about 1 mm from the sample surface (Methods, Acquisition procedure: bubble center at z = 2.5 mm with a 3-mm cage), so the 0.5-mm struts form a position-dependent acoustic boundary whose influence on the bubble's radiation impedance may differ above steel, water, and air regions. Because the contrast in Fig. 4 is attributed throughout to the bubble's resonance shift, the absence of a cage-included simulation or of a control experiment leaves open the possibility that a substantial part of the measured contrast is a cage-sample artifact. I request an explicit test: either include the cage (or a simplified rigid equivalent) in the FDTD model, or perform a control experiment that varies the cage geometry or otherwise isolates the cage contribution, and quantify how much of the measured frequency shift originates from the cage rather than from the bubble.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Introduction] The phrase 'two orders of magnitudes' should be 'two orders of magnitude' in both the abstract and the introduction.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption; Methods (Acquisition procedure)] The Fig. 4 caption states that the bubble was scanned '2 mm above the sample,' whereas the Methods state that the center of the bubble was at z = 2.5 mm from the interface after retracting the cage by 1 mm; please reconcile these values.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The Fig. 3 caption says 'a,b' but refers to panels '(b)' and '(c)' for the rigid and free interfaces; the panel labels in the caption should be corrected.
  4. [Supplementary S6; Fig. 2d,h] The fitted effective diameters and zero-distance offsets differ between the steel and air interface experiments (deq = 3.1 and 3.4 mm; z0 = 2.3 and 2.6 mm). The statistical errors from curve_fit are reported, but the systematic uncertainty from bubble-to-bubble volume variability should also be discussed, especially because the two experiments used different bubbles.
  5. [Supplementary S1] The linear drift correction is substantial for the SNAM image (0.10 kHz over about 1 h 49 min), and the uncorrected image shows a clear gradient. Since the correction is based on endpoint measurements, please state whether an interleaved reference measurement was performed or otherwise justify the linearity assumption over the full scan.
  6. [Eq. (2); Supplementary S6] The infinite sum in Eq. (2) is evaluated numerically; the main text should mention the truncation used (the supplementary states 100 terms) so that the comparison is reproducible from the main text alone.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor fitted-input-called-prediction in the validation curves; central imaging claim is measured directly and not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results, 'Bubble dynamics close to an interface'; Supplementary Section S6 (Eq. S2, S3; Fig. 2d,h)]
    "In the experiments, both the effective bubble diameter and the minimal bubble-interface distance need to be treated as free parameters (see Supplementary Materials, Section 6). Using this procedure, we observed again an excellent agreement between theoretical predictions and experimental results (Fig. 2d,h)."

    The curves labeled 'theoretical predictions' in Fig. 2d,h are generated by Eq. (S2) after least-squares fitting deq and z0 to the same experimental frequency-distance points (Eq. S3), so the agreement is partly a consequence of the fit rather than an independent prediction. The sign reversal between rigid and free interfaces and the approximate 1/z-like distance dependence come from the external Morioka expression and are not fixed by the two fitted parameters, so the shape comparison retains some independent content. Moreover, the imaging demonstration in Fig. 4 uses measured resonance shifts and Lorentzian fits directly, so the central super-resolution claim does not reduce to this validation fit. The circularity is therefore minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The core imaging result is self-contained: the super-resolved images in Fig. 4 are constructed directly from measured power spectral densities and Lorentzian fits of the bubble resonance, without using any fitted model to generate the contrast. The Minnaert and Morioka formulas are external results, and the paper is transparent that deq and z0 are free parameters; the resulting agreement in Fig. 2 is a model validation rather than an independent prediction, which is the one minor 'fitted input called prediction' overstatement noted above. A similar caveat applies to Fig. 3, where deq is fitted to make FDTD points coincide with Eq. (2), but that comparison is not the source of the imaging claim. Self-citations [32,33,34,39] concern cage fabrication, cubic-bubble acoustics, and the FDTD solver; they are prior results with independent content and are not used as a uniqueness argument or to forbid alternatives. The neglect of the 3D-printed cage in the FDTD simulations is a real physical limitation acknowledged in the Discussion, but it weakens quantitative interpretation rather than building the conclusion into the inputs, so it is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Overall, no load-bearing circular step is present; the central claim stands on direct measurement.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The experimental demonstration of caged-bubble near-field acoustic imaging is the paper's core contribution, and it stands on its own direct measurements. The theoretical and numerical comparisons provide supporting context but lean on fitted effective parameters and a neglected cage. The imaging claim is not internally circular, and the data are shared. Considering the disclosed limitations, a conditional accept is appropriate.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective bubble diameter deq = 3.1 mm (water-steel), 3.4 mm (water-air), fitted to FDTD for cubic bubble
    Maps the cubic bubble to the spherical-bubble theory of Morioka (Eq. 2). Determined by least-squares fit to experimental or FDTD data, not independently measured. Consistent with trapped-air volume V ≤ 20 mm^3.
  • Minimal bubble-interface distance z0 = 2.3 mm (water-steel), 2.6 mm (water-air)
    Fitted parameter in the comparison of 1D line scans to Eq. (2); nominal geometric value from contact-by-eye plus 1 mm retraction is about 2.5 mm.
  • Lorentzian fit parameters (K, f0, gamma) = Per measurement point
    Standard fits to the power spectral density to extract resonance frequency, linewidth, and amplitude. Data-processing fits, not physical model parameters.
  • FRC correlation cutoff threshold = 0.3
    Chosen arbitrarily to define maximal spatial frequency in the resolution analysis; authors state results weakly depend on this value.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Minnaert resonance formula for a spherical bubble
    Used to estimate the homogeneous-space resonance frequency f0 and to normalize frequencies in Eq. (2). Established in the acoustic bubble literature (Leighton [19]).
  • domain assumption Morioka's two-bubble resonance formula and the method-of-images equivalence for rigid and free interfaces
    Eq. (2) gives the distance dependence of the resonance frequency for a spherical bubble near a boundary. Derived for incompressible potential flow of two bubbles; assumed to apply to the cubic bubble with an effective diameter.
  • domain assumption Cubic bubble can be represented by an equivalent spherical bubble for resonance dynamics
    Invoked in Methods and Supplementary S2 to compare cubic-bubble measurements to spherical-bubble theory; supported by FDTD but the effective diameter is fitted.
  • domain assumption The 3D-printed cage is acoustically negligible for resonance-frequency shift measurements
    FDTD simulations neglect the cage (Methods); Discussion suspects cage contributes to non-radiative damping but assumes it does not affect the frequency shifts used for imaging. Not experimentally isolated.
  • domain assumption Tank boundaries of the water tank do not affect the near-field frequency shift
    FDTD comparisons between finite-tank free boundaries and PML show negligible differences (Supplementary S2.1); the 190 mm tank is non-resonant at the probe frequencies.
  • standard math Incompressible potential flow is a good approximation for the near-field bubble dynamics
    Morioka's theory and the angular spectrum decomposition rely on it; FDTD results support it because spherical-bubble simulations match Morioka (Supplementary S2.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near-field acoustic imaging with a caged bubble." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABM4DTZJ

@misc{pith2026241118386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near-field acoustic imaging with a caged bubble},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABM4DTZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18386}
}
read the original abstract

Bubbles are ubiquitous in many research applications ranging from ultrasound imaging and drug delivery to the understanding of volcanic eruptions and water circulation in vascular plants. From an acoustic perspective, bubbles are resonant scatterers with remarkable properties, including a large scattering cross-section and strongly sub-wavelength dimensions. While it is known that the resonance properties of bubbles depend on their local environment, it remains challenging to probe this interaction at the single-bubble level due to the difficulty of manipulating a single resonating bubble in a liquid. Here, we confine a cubic bubble inside a cage using 3D printing technology, and we use this bubble as a local probe to perform scanning near-field acoustic microscopy -- an acoustic analogue of scanning near-field optical microscopy. By probing the acoustic interaction between a single resonating bubble and its local environment, we demonstrate near-field imaging of complex structures with a resolution that is two orders of magnitudes smaller than the wavelength of the acoustic field. As a potential application, our approach paves the way for the development of low-cost acoustic microscopes based on caged bubbles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Principle of a scanning near-field acoustic microscope [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Measurements of the bubble dynamics close to interfaces. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Modeling of the bubble dynamics close to interfaces. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Demonstration of super-resolution near-field imaging with a single resonating bubble. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Transverse resolution of the approach. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Novotny and B

    L. Novotny and B. Hecht, Principles of Nano-Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    E. H. Synge, A suggested method for extending micro- scopic resolution into the ultra-microscopic region, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 6, 356 (1928)

    work page 1928

  3. [3]

    D. W. Pohl, W. Denk, and M. Lanz, Optical stethoscopy: Image recording with resolution λ/20, Applied Physics Letters 44, 651 (1984)

    work page 1984

  4. [4]

    E. J. S´ anchez, L. Novotny, and X. S. Xie, Near-Field Flu- orescence Microscopy Based on Two-Photon Excitation with Metal Tips, Physical Review Letters 82, 4014 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Kalkbrenner, M

    T. Kalkbrenner, M. Ramstein, J. Mlynek, and V. San- doghdar, A single gold particle as a probe for aperture- less scanning near-field optical microscopy, Journal of Mi- croscopy 202, 72 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Michaelis, C

    J. Michaelis, C. Hettich, J. Mlynek, and V. Sandoghdar, Optical microscopy using a single-molecule light source, Nature 405, 325 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    R. J. Hermann and M. J. Gordon, Nanoscale Optical Mi- croscopy and Spectroscopy Using Near-Field Probes, An- nual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 9, 365 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Anger, P

    P. Anger, P. Bharadwaj, and L. Novotny, Enhancement and Quenching of Single-Molecule Fluorescence, Physical Review Letters 96, 113002 (2006)

    2006

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    K¨ uhn, U

    S. K¨ uhn, U. H ˚ akanson, L. Rogobete, and V. Sandogh- dar, Enhancement of Single-Molecule Fluorescence Using a Gold Nanoparticle as an Optical Nanoantenna, Physical Review Letters 97, 017402 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Frimmer, Y

    M. Frimmer, Y. Chen, and A. Koenderink, Scanning Emitter Lifetime Imaging Microscopy for Spontaneous Emission Control, Physical Review Letters 107, 123602 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Aigouy, A

    L. Aigouy, A. Caz´ e, P. Gredin, M. Mortier, and R. Carmi- nati, Mapping and Quantifying Electric and Magnetic Dipole Luminescence at the Nanoscale, Physical Review Letters 113, 076101 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Bouchet, M

    D. Bouchet, M. Mivelle, J. Proust, B. Gallas, I. Ozerov, M. F. Garcia-Parajo, A. Gulinatti, I. Rech, Y. De Wilde, N. Bonod, V. Krachmalnicoff, and S. Bidault, Enhance- ment and Inhibition of Spontaneous Photon Emission by Resonant Silicon Nanoantennas, Physical Review Applied ...

    2016

  5. [13]

    P. N. T. Wells, Ultrasound imaging, Physics in Medicine & Biology 51, R83 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    Ensminger and L

    D. Ensminger and L. J. J. Bond, Ultrasonics: Fundamen- tals, Technologies, and Applications (CRC Press, 2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    G¨ unther, U

    P. G¨ unther, U. C. Fischer, and K. Dransfeld, Scanning near-field acoustic microscopy, Applied Physics B 48, 89 (1989)

    1989

  8. [16]

    Rabe and W

    U. Rabe and W. Arnold, Acoustic microscopy by atomic force microscopy, Applied Physics Letters64, 1493 (1994)

    1994

  9. [17]

    Langguth, R

    L. Langguth, R. Fleury, A. Al` u, and A. F. Koenderink, Drexhage’s Experiment for Sound, Physical Review Let- ters 116, 224301 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    M. K. Schmidt, L. Helt, C. G. Poulton, and M. Steel, Elastic Purcell Effect, Physical Review Letters 121, 064301 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    T. G. Leighton, The Acoustic Bubble (Academic Press, San Diego, 1997)

    1997

  12. [20]

    Dollet, P

    B. Dollet, P. Marmottant, and V. Garbin, Bubble Dy- namics in Soft and Biological Matter, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 51, 331 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Errico, J

    C. Errico, J. Pierre, S. Pezet, Y. Desailly, Z. Lenkei, O. Couture, and M. Tanter, Ultrafast ultrasound localiza- tion microscopy for deep super-resolution vascular imag- ing, Nature 527, 499 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Betzig, G

    E. Betzig, G. H. Patterson, R. Sougrat, O. W. Lind- wasser, S. Olenych, J. S. Bonifacino, M. W. Davidson, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, and H. F. Hess, Imaging Intracel- lular Fluorescent Proteins at Nanometer Resolution, Sci- ence 313, 1642 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Zhang, S

    G. Zhang, S. Harput, S. Lin, K. Christensen-Jeffries, C. H. Leow, J. Brown, C. Dunsby, R. J. Eckersley, and M.- X. Tang, Acoustic wave sparsely activated localization mi- croscopy (awsalm): Super-resolution ultrasound imaging using acoustic activation and deactivation of nanod...

    2018

  16. [24]

    R. R. Dagastine, G. W. Stevens, D. Y. C. Chan, and F. Grieser, Forces between two oil drops in aqueous solu- tion measured by AFM, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 273, 339 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    R. R. Dagastine, R. Manica, S. L. Carnie, D. Y. C. Chan, G. W. Stevens, and F. Grieser, Dynamic Forces Between Two Deformable Oil Droplets in Water, Science 313, 210 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    I. U. Vakarelski, J. Lee, R. R. Dagastine, D. Y. C. Chan, G. W. Stevens, and F. Grieser, Bubble Colloidal AFM Probes Formed from Ultrasonically Generated Bubbles, Langmuir 24, 603 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    I. U. Vakarelski, R. Manica, X. Tang, S. J. O’Shea, G. W. Stevens, F. Grieser, R. R. Dagastine, and D. Y. C. Chan, 10 Dynamic interactions between microbubbles in water, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 11177 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    C. Shi, X. Cui, L. Xie, Q. Liu, D. Y. C. Chan, J. N. Is- raelachvili, and H. Zeng, Measuring Forces and Spatiotem- poral Evolution of Thin Water Films between an Air Bub- ble and Solid Surfaces of Different Hydrophobicity, ACS Nano 9, 95 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    C. Qiao, D. Yang, X. Mao, L. Xie, L. Gong, X. Peng, Q. Peng, T. Wang, H. Zhang, and H. Zeng, Recent ad- vances in bubble-based technologies: Underlying interac- tion mechanisms and applications, Applied Physics Re- views 8, 011315 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Garbin, D

    V. Garbin, D. Cojoc, E. Ferrari, E. Di Fabrizio, M. L. J. Overvelde, S. M. van der Meer, N. de Jong, D. Lohse, and M. Versluis, Changes in microbubble dynamics near a boundary revealed by combined optical micromanipula- tion and high-speed imaging, Applied Physics Letters 90, ...

    2007

  23. [31]

    B. L. Helfield, B. Y. C. Leung, and D. E. Goertz, The effect of boundary proximity on the response of individ- ual ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles, Physics in Medicine & Biology 59, 1721 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Harazi, M

    M. Harazi, M. Rupin, O. Stephan, E. Bossy, and P. Mar- mottant, Acoustics of Cubic Bubbles: Six Coupled Oscil- lators, Physical Review Letters 123, 254501 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Combriat, P

    T. Combriat, P. Rouby-Poizat, A. A. Doinikov, O. Stephan, and P. Marmottant, Acoustic interaction be- tween 3D-fabricated cubic bubbles, Soft Matter 16, 2829 (2020)

    2020

  26. [35]

    Alloul, B

    M. Alloul, B. Dollet, O. Stephan, E. Bossy, C. Quil- liet, and P. Marmottant, Acoustic Resonance Frequencies of Underwater Toroidal Bubbles, Physical Review Letters 129, 134501 (2022)

    2022

  27. [36]

    A. A. Doinikov, L. Aired, and A. Bouakaz, Acoustic scat- tering from a contrast agent microbubble near an elastic wall of finite thickness, Physics in Medicine & Biology 56, 6951 (2011)

    2011

  28. [37]

    Morioka, Theory of Natural Frequencies of Two Pul- sating Bubbles in Infinite Liquid, Journal of Nuclear Sci- ence and Technology 11, 554 (1974)

    M. Morioka, Theory of Natural Frequencies of Two Pul- sating Bubbles in Infinite Liquid, Journal of Nuclear Sci- ence and Technology 11, 554 (1974)

    1974

  29. [38]

    Strasberg, The Pulsation Frequency of Nonspherical Gas Bubbles in Liquids, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25, 536 (1953)

    M. Strasberg, The Pulsation Frequency of Nonspherical Gas Bubbles in Liquids, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25, 536 (1953)

    1953

  30. [39]

    Bossy, M

    E. Bossy, M. Talmant, and P. Laugier, Three-dimensional simulations of ultrasonic axial transmission velocity mea- surement on cortical bone models, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115, 2314 (2004)

    2004

  31. [40]

    H. H. Barrett and K. J. Myers, Foundations of Image Science (John Wiley & Sons, 2003)

    2003

  32. [41]

    W. O. Saxton and W. Baumeister, The correlation aver- aging of a regularly arranged bacterial cell envelope pro- tein, Journal of Microscopy 127, 127 (1982)

    1982

  33. [42]

    Van Heel, Similarity measures between images, Ultra- microscopy 21, 95 (1987)

    M. Van Heel, Similarity measures between images, Ultra- microscopy 21, 95 (1987)

    1987

  34. [44]

    Banterle, K

    N. Banterle, K. H. Bui, E. A. Lemke, and M. Beck, Fourier ring correlation as a resolution criterion for super- resolution microscopy, Journal of Structural Biology 183, 363 (2013)

    2013

  35. [45]

    E. G. Williams, Fourier Acoustics: Sound Radiation and Nearfield Acoustical Holography (Academic Press, San Diego, 1999)

    1999

  36. [46]

    Carlotti and V

    M. Carlotti and V. Mattoli, Functional Materials for Two-Photon Polymerization in Microfabrication, Small 15, 1902687 (2019)

    2019

  37. [47]

    Anastasiadis and P

    P. Anastasiadis and P. V. Zinin, High-Frequency Time- Resolved Scanning Acoustic Microscopy for Biomedical Applications, The Open Neuroimaging Journal 12, 69 (2018)

    2018

  38. [48]

    Carminati, A

    R. Carminati, A. Caz´ e, D. Cao, F. Peragut, V. Krach- malnicoff, R. Pierrat, and Y. De Wilde, Electromagnetic density of states in complex plasmonic systems, Surface Science Reports 70, 1 (2015)

    2015

  39. [49]

    Landi, J

    M. Landi, J. Zhao, W. E. Prather, Y. Wu, and L. Zhang, Acoustic Purcell Effect for Enhanced Emission, Physical Review Letters 120, 114301 (2018)

    2018

  40. [50]

    Strybulevych, V

    A. Strybulevych, V. Leroy, M. G. Scanlon, and J. H. Page, Acoustic Microrheology : Shear Moduli of Soft Ma- terials Determined from Single Bubble Oscillations, Pro- ceedings of Symposium on Ultrasonic Electronics 30, 395 (2009)

    2009

  41. [51]

    Hamaguchi and K

    F. Hamaguchi and K. Ando, Linear oscillation of gas bub- bles in a viscoelastic material under ultrasound irradia- tion, Physics of Fluids 27, 113103 (2015)

    2015

  42. [52]

    Jamburidze, M

    A. Jamburidze, M. D. Corato, A. Huerre, A. Pommella, and V. Garbin, High-frequency linear rheology of hydro- gels probed by ultrasound-driven microbubble dynamics, Soft Matter 13, 3946 (2017)

    2017

  43. [53]

    Tourin, M

    A. Tourin, M. Fink, and A. Derode, Multiple scattering of sound, Waves in Random Media 10, R31 (2000)

    2000

  44. [54]

    Leroy, A

    V. Leroy, A. Strybulevych, M. Lanoy, F. Lemoult, A. Tourin, and J. H. Page, Superabsorption of acoustic waves with bubble metascreens, Physical Review B 91, 020301 (2015)

    2015

  45. [55]

    S. A. Cummer, J. Christensen, and A. Al` u, Controlling sound with acoustic metamaterials, Nature Reviews Ma- terials 1, 1 (2016)

    2016

  46. [56]

    S”, “N” and “M

    G. Ma and P. Sheng, Acoustic metamaterials: From lo- cal resonances to broad horizons, Science Advances 2, e1501595 (2016). 11 Near-field acoustic imaging with a caged bubble Supplementary information Dorian Bouchet,1 Olivier Stephan,1 Benjamin Dollet,1 Philippe Marmottant,1 a...

    2016

  47. [57]

    Morioka, Theory of Natural Frequencies of Two Pulsating Bubbles in Infinite Liquid, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 11, 554 (1974)

    M. Morioka, Theory of Natural Frequencies of Two Pulsating Bubbles in Infinite Liquid, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 11, 554 (1974)

    1974

  48. [58]

    Boughzala, O

    M. Boughzala, O. Stephan, E. Bossy, B. Dollet, and P. Marmottant, Polyhedral Bubble Vibrations, Physical Review Letters 126, 054502 (2021)

    2021

  49. [59]

    W. O. Saxton and W. Baumeister, The correlation averaging of a regularly arranged bacterial cell envelope protein, Journal of Microscopy 127, 127 (1982)

    1982

  50. [60]

    Van Heel, Similarity measures between images, Ultramicroscopy 21, 95 (1987)

    M. Van Heel, Similarity measures between images, Ultramicroscopy 21, 95 (1987)

    1987

  51. [61]

    R. P. J. Nieuwenhuizen, K. A. Lidke, M. Bates, D. L. Puig, D. Gr¨ unwald, S. Stallinga, and B. Rieger, Measuring image resolution in optical nanoscopy, Nature Methods 10, 557 (2013)

    2013

  52. [62]

    Banterle, K

    N. Banterle, K. H. Bui, E. A. Lemke, and M. Beck, Fourier ring correlation as a resolution criterion for super-resolution microscopy, Journal of Structural Biology 183, 363 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.