Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A reduced viscoelastic FDTD formulation for ultrasound-driven shear wave propagation in soft tissue

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A reduced Kelvin–Voigt shear equation, solved with explicit FDTD and solenoidal force projection, recovers ultrasound-driven tissue motion accurately at a fraction of full elastodynamic cost.

desk verdict Solid, well-validated shear-only FDTD tool for ARF workflows; novelty is engineering assembly more than new physics, and the main soft spots are disclosed scope limits plus a thin heterogeneity claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28414 v1 pith:NY5ZK3WZ submitted 2026-07-30 physics.med-ph

Gianmarco Pinton This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph
keywords shearwaveelastographyFDTDacousticradiationforceviscoelasticityKelvin–Voigtsolenoidalprojectionultrasonicneuromodulationtranscranialultrasound
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

Ultrasound pushes on soft tissue create tiny shear waves used in elastography and studied as possible drivers of neuromodulation. Full elastic finite-element codes can model that motion but spend effort on compressional physics that barely matters when tissue is nearly incompressible. This paper strips the Navier equations down to a shear-only Kelvin–Voigt wave equation by enforcing incompressibility and projecting the radiation force onto its divergence-free part, then advances that equation with a second-order finite-difference time-domain scheme. A one-time Poisson solve precomputes the force projection when the acoustic push pattern is fixed, cutting that cost by one to two orders of magnitude. Homogeneous benchmarks recover shear speed to under 0.1 percent, match Kelvin–Voigt attenuation and phase speed across a viscosity sweep, and hit standardized QIBA phantom speeds to about 1 percent; skull-coupled demos produce micrometer-scale brain displacements consistent with clinical ARFI. The point is a purpose-built, acoustic-simulator-friendly tool for the shear motion that actually matters in these applications.

What carries the argument

The reduced Kelvin–Voigt shear equation ρ ∂²u/∂t² = μ ∇²u + η ∇² ∂u/∂t + f_S, with f_S the solenoidal projection of the radiation body force obtained from a matrix-free conjugate-gradient Poisson solve (precomputed once when the force is spatially separable).

What would settle it

Compare the reduced FDTD displacement field against a full viscoelastic FEM solution on the same heterogeneous skull–brain geometry with the same radiation-force source; large near-interface or near-focus discrepancies in shear displacement or arrival time would falsify adequacy of the solenoidal reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under near-incompressibility, small strain, Helmholtz decomposition, and solenoidal projection of the body force, the full linear viscoelastic Navier system reduces to a forced Kelvin–Voigt shear wave equation whose explicit second-order FDTD solution recovers theoretical shear wavespeed to under 0.1 percent, analytical attenuation and phase speed to roughly 3 percent and under 1 percent over η from 0 to 1.5 Pa·s, and RSNA QIBA phantom shear speeds to about 1 percent across G = 1–10 kPa, while remaining far cheaper than general-purpose FEM for shear-dominant ultrasound problems.

Load-bearing premise

That radiation-force tissue motion can be treated as pure shear—dropping compressional waves, mode conversion at interfaces, and any need for volumetric strain—without spoiling the displacements that matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SWE and ARFI pipelines can couple acoustic simulators to this shear solver instead of full elastodynamic FEM for routine forward modeling.
  • Precomputed force projection makes full-field heterogeneous shear runs cheap enough for iterative inverse problems and machine-learning training sets.
  • Transcranial neuromodulation hypotheses can be checked quantitatively against predicted micrometer-scale brain displacements from realistic skull-filtered pushes.
  • Spatial maps of shear modulus, density, and viscosity can be inserted directly without changing the update structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Fixed-wall boundaries will limit long-time or large-domain use until absorbing layers are added; early-time sensor windows are a temporary workaround, not a full fix.
  • The same reduction could stress-test whether flexoelectric or strain-gradient neuromodulation mechanisms remain plausible once skull-filtered ARF amplitudes are used consistently.
  • If P–S conversion at bone–soft-tissue interfaces proves non-negligible in vivo, hybrid near-field full-elastic / far-field shear coupling may be the natural next method rather than pure shear everywhere.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a reduced Kelvin–Voigt shear-wave equation for ultrasound-driven soft-tissue motion by applying near-incompressibility, small-strain linearization, Helmholtz decomposition, and solenoidal projection of the body force to the linear Navier equations, then implements it as an explicit second-order FDTD scheme with a matrix-free CG Poisson solve (and a pre-computed projection for separable ARF sources). Homogeneous validation recovers theoretical shear speed to <0.1% (linear-fit), shows trace-L2 self-convergence with p≳2, matches analytical KV attenuation and phase speed to ~3% and <1% over η∈[0,1.5] Pa·s, and recovers RSNA QIBA phantom speeds to ~1% for G=1–10 kPa. Transcranial demos through micro-CT skulls, driven by Fullwave-derived ARF, produce 1.7–5 μm displacements. Code is released.

Significance. If the homogeneous accuracy claims hold—as the four independent benchmarks indicate—the paper supplies a purpose-built, lightweight shear-only FDTD tool that is substantially cheaper than general-purpose FEM for SWE and elastomechanical neuromodulation workflows, while integrating cleanly with acoustic simulators. Strengths include reproducible validation scripts, an external QIBA cross-check previously exercised with LS-DYNA/Abaqus, a linearity-based pre-computed projection that is not circular, and open code. The reduction is classical but carefully specialized and documented for the ultrasound community; that is a genuine practical contribution even if the continuum reduction itself is not new.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.4 Eq. (16); §3.1] §2.4 Eq. (16) and §3.1 Eqs. (17)–(18) are written in constant-coefficient form, ρ u_tt = μ ∇²u + η ∇² u_t + f_S (and a_n = (μ/ρ)∇²_h u^n + …). The abstract and §1/§7 claim the framework “accommodates spatial heterogeneity in shear modulus, density, and viscosity,” but the correct variable-coefficient reduction of ∇·σ for isotropic Kelvin–Voigt media replaces μ∇²u by terms of the form ∇·(μ ∇u) (plus analogous viscous terms), and ρ(x) cannot simply sit outside as a global factor. No variable-coefficient identity, discrete stencil, or heterogeneous inclusion benchmark is given. Either derive and implement the variable-μ,ρ,η update and add at least one heterogeneous test, or qualify the heterogeneity claim to piecewise-homogeneous / constant-coefficient media. This does not undermine the homogeneous recovery figures, but it is load-bearing for the stated scope.
  2. [Abstract; §3.1; §4.3] The abstract and §3.1 advertise “second-order spatial and temporal accuracy,” yet §3.1 correctly notes that the viscous term is only first-order in time (backward difference for u̇). For the η-sweep that is a headline result (§4.3, Table 2), the formal order is therefore mixed. Please state the temporal order of the full scheme consistently in the abstract and methods, and, if practical, report a brief viscous timestep-refinement check so that the ~3% attenuation error is not partly first-order truncation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1; Abstract] §4.1 reports both a mean peak-picked speed (1.976 m/s, ~1.2% low) and a distance–time linear-fit speed (1.998 m/s, <0.1%). The abstract quotes only the latter. A brief clause noting that the headline <0.1% is the linear-fit (not peak-pick) estimate would avoid over-reading.
  2. [§3.5; §4.4] Fixed Dirichlet outer boundaries (§3.5, §6.1) are acknowledged; validation is restricted to early/intermediate times. For the QIBA runs (lateral offsets 4–14 mm on a 60×50×50 mm domain) a one-sentence confirmation that reported arrivals are free of wall reflections would help readers reproduce the protocol.
  3. [Abstract; §5] Transcranial sections (§5) brain-mask the force and use homogeneous brain μ; they illustrate the multiphysics pipeline rather than validate interface elastodynamics. Labeling them explicitly as “demonstrations” (as the heading does) in the abstract’s final sentence would align claim strength with content.
  4. [§2.2; §4.4] Minor notation: G and μ are both used for shear modulus (QIBA vs. derivation); a single symbol or an explicit G≡μ note would help. Also “Lam´ e” encoding glitches appear in §2.2.
  5. [§4.2; Table 1] Table 1 global fit p=2.9 is steeper than formal order; the text already notes self-convergence bias near the reference—consider also quoting the coarser pairwise slopes (≈2.2–2.9) in the abstract’s “p≳2” phrase for transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: homogeneous validations compare the FDTD scheme to closed-form Kelvin–Voigt theory and the external RSNA QIBA standard, not to quantities defined from the solver’s own fits.

full rationale

The reduced equation (Eq. 16) is obtained by standard continuum reductions (near-incompressibility, Helmholtz decomposition, solenoidal projection of f) applied to the Navier/Kelvin–Voigt system; those steps are definitional modeling choices, not circular predictions. Wavespeed recovery checks that the discrete scheme propagates at c_S = √(μ/ρ) implied by the input constitutive parameters—ordinary numerical verification, not a fitted-input-called-prediction. The viscosity sweep compares measured α and phase speed to the independent analytical Kelvin–Voigt dispersion relation. The QIBA end-to-end benchmark uses the external RSNA phantom specification previously exercised with LS-DYNA/Abaqus. Pre-computed projection (Eq. 33) is a linearity identity for separable sources. Self-citations (Fullwave, prior skull/neuromodulation work) supply the acoustic front-end for demonstrations only and do not underwrite the headline error bars. Grid self-convergence is standard numerical practice. No load-bearing step reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central accuracy claims rest on standard continuum reductions and a classical KV damper, not on fitted physical constants. No new particle/field is postulated. Free choices are numerical (tol, CFL safety, fixed walls, Gaussian QIBA widths taken from committee convention) and constitutive (single η). Load-bearing domain assumptions are near-incompressibility, small strain, timescale-separated sequential acousto-elastic coupling, isotropy, and adequacy of solenoidal ARF projection.

free parameters (3)
  • Kelvin–Voigt shear viscosity η (tissue cases) = benchmark sweep [0, 1.5] Pa·s; demo 0.5 Pa·s
    Single scalar damper chosen for demos/benchmarks (e.g. η=0.5 Pa·s brain; sweep 0–1.5 Pa·s). Not fitted to claim wavespeed recovery, but shapes attenuation results and transcranial amplitudes.
  • CG relative residual tolerance and max iterations
    Controls how accurately f_S is solenoidal each step or in pre-computation; affects whether compressional leakage remains. Not numerically specified as a single value in the text.
  • CFL safety factor / timestep choice
    Stability bound motivated by inviscid homogeneous limit (Eq. 19); practical Δt chosen in validation scripts and can affect dispersion error.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Soft tissue satisfies K/μ ~ 10^5–10^6 so the incompressible limit ∇·u=0 is an accurate reduction for radiation-force shear motion.
    §2.1–2.4; eliminates longitudinal potentials and introduces pressure as Lagrange multiplier before projecting to Eq. 16.
  • domain assumption Small-strain linear isotropic Kelvin–Voigt constitutive law (Eq. 8) adequately describes ultrasound-driven micrometer-scale tissue motion.
    §2.2 and §6.1; excludes nonlinear shear shocks, fractional/power-law viscoelasticity, and anisotropy.
  • domain assumption Acoustic and shear timescales separate by ~10^3 so ARF may be precomputed and supplied as a prescribed body force to the shear solver.
    §1, §2.1, §3.4; standard SWE sequential coupling assumption.
  • domain assumption Helmholtz–Hodge solenoidal projection of the body force removes all compressional excitation relevant to the applications.
    §2.3–2.4, §3.2; makes the scheme a shear-mode propagator only.
  • standard math Second-order centered 7-point Laplacian and leapfrog update are consistent discretizations of Eq. 16 with the stated accuracy.
    §3.1; classical FDTD/finite-difference theory; viscous term first-order in time.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed zero-displacement outer boundaries plus early-time or short-offset analysis do not corrupt reported wavespeeds and attenuation.
    §3.5, §6.1; implementation choice; PML listed as future work.
  • domain assumption QIBA Gaussian ARF convention and cross-correlation group-speed estimator are valid end-to-end truth proxies.
    §4.4 citing Palmeri et al. 2017 guidelines; elastic η=0 phantoms only.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A reduced viscoelastic FDTD formulation for ultrasound-driven shear wave propagation in soft tissue." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NY5ZK3WZ

@misc{pith2026260728414,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A reduced viscoelastic FDTD formulation for ultrasound-driven shear wave propagation in soft tissue},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NY5ZK3WZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28414}
}
abstract

Ultrasound-driven shear wave propagation in soft tissue underlies shear wave elastography (SWE) and emerging elastomechanical hypotheses of ultrasonic neuromodulation, both of which require accurate, efficient modeling of radiation-force--induced tissue motion. General-purpose finite-element elastodynamic solvers are often computationally expensive and unnecessarily broad for shear-dominant applications. We derive a reduced viscoelastic formulation by applying near-incompressibility, small-strain linearization, Helmholtz decomposition, and solenoidal force projection to the full Navier equations, yielding a Kelvin--Voigt shear wave equation that retains only the transverse dynamics relevant to radiation-force--induced motion. An explicit finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) implementation with second-order spatial and temporal accuracy enforces the solenoidal body-force constraint via a matrix-free conjugate-gradient Poisson solve. For separable radiation-force sources, a pre-computed projection reduces this cost by one to two orders of magnitude. In homogeneous media the solver recovers the theoretical shear wavespeed to within $<$0.1\%, exhibits clear second-order grid convergence (trace-$L_2$ self-convergence, $p\gtrsim2$), and matches analytical Kelvin--Voigt attenuation and phase speed to within ${\sim}3\%$ and $<$1\% over a 16-point viscosity sweep ($\eta\in[0,1.5]$~Pa$\cdot$s). An end-to-end RSNA QIBA phantom benchmark recovers shear wave speeds to within ${\sim}1\%$ across a tenfold shear-modulus range ($G=1$--$10$~kPa). The framework accommodates spatial heterogeneity in shear modulus, density, and viscosity, and integrates with acoustic simulators. Transcranial demonstrations through micro-CT skull geometries produce shear displacements of 1.7--5~$\mu$m consistent with clinical ARFI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28414 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Non-viscous wavespeed validation. Top: Shear-wave field snapshot (uz), x–y slice (left), x–z slice (middle), y–z slice at x = 0 (right). Bottom: Displacement traces (uz) at four sensor offsets (3.6, 6.0, 8.4, 10.8 mm). Wavespeed is estimated from peak arrival times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Grid convergence of the full-waveform trace L2 self-convergence error (relative L2 error of velocity traces vs the finest grid) against grid spacing (log–log), for a fixed 3 mm physical source. The fitted global slope is p ≈ 2.9 (R2 = 0.97). Dashed reference lines show O(∆x) and O(∆x 2 ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 1D harmonic Kelvin–Voigt benchmark over η ∈ [0, 1.5] Pa·s with adaptive sensor placement and frequency scheduling. Left: Attenuation (measured vs theory). Right: Phase speed (measured vs theory). scaling, and a smooth frequency schedule f0(η) guided by dimensional analysis. Define the loss parameter and dimensionless attenuation Dev = ωη µ , Πα = αcs ω , cs = p µ/ρ. (40) For weak-to-moderate loss (Dev ≪ 1), Πα ≈ Dev… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: QIBA elastic phantom validation using a Gaussian body force excitation matching the QIBA con￾vention. (a) Gaussian radiation force distribution (Eq. 42), with the focal spot centered at 30 mm depth. (b) Space–time kymograph of axial displacement for the G = 5 kPa phant…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Acoustical medium, pressure propagation, and acoustic radiation force for the sparse array transcranial configuration. Top row: Sound speed, density, and attenuation coefficient α0 derived from micro-CT skull data (x–y slices at full resolution). Middle row: Pressure p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Shear wave displacement for the sparse array configuration. Top row: displacement magnitude |u| in x–y slices at center elevation. Middle row: |u| in x–z slices at center lateral position. White contours indicate the skull boundary. Bottom row: displacement time traces…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Composite TIPS transcranial shear wave simulation. (a,b) Axial and sagittal micro-CT slices showing the TIPS annular aperture (gold rings) and geometric focal spot (cyan star). (c) 3D rendering of the skull slab (semi-transparent blue), TIPS bowl transducer (gold), and…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An open-source framework for predicting ultrasound neuromodulation: bridging tissue elastomechanics and neuron firing dynamics

    physics.med-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An end-to-end simulation framework chains transcranial ultrasound pressure, tissue strain, brain temperature, and a multi-pathway Hodgkin-Huxley neuron to produce anatomy-registered per-voxel firing maps, demonstrated...

  2. An Angular Spectrum Method for Nonlinear Propagation in Heterogeneous Tissue with Immersed Sources for Ultrasound

    physics.med-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A modified angular spectrum solver with obliquity corrections, shock-capturing nonlinearity, and plane-by-plane curved-source injection matches full-wave simulations of transcranial and bowl-transducer ultrasound to w...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Swanson, J

    Armen Sarvazyan, Oleg Rudenko, Scott D. Swanson, J. Brian Fowlkes, and Stanislav Emelianov. Shear wave elasticity imaging: a new ultrasonic technology of medical diagnostics.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 24(9):1419–1435, 1998

    1998

  2. [2]

    Barr, Giovanna Ferraioli, Mark L

    Richard G. Barr, Giovanna Ferraioli, Mark L. Palmeri, Zachary D. Goodman, et al. Elastography assessment of liver fibrosis: Society of radiologists in ultrasound consensus conference statement. Radiology, 276(3):845–861, 2015

    2015

  3. [3]

    Ultrasound elastogra- phy: principles and techniques.Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, 94(5):487–495, 2013

    Jean-Luc Gennisson, Thomas Deffieux, Mathias Fink, and Mickael Tanter. Ultrasound elastogra- phy: principles and techniques.Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, 94(5):487–495, 2013

    2013

  4. [4]

    Rosa M. S. Sigrist, Joy Liau, Ahmed El Kaffas, Maria Cristina Chammas, and J¨ urgen K. Willmann. Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications.Theranostics, 7(5):1303– 1329, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Butler, and Robin O

    Joseph Blackmore, Shamit Shrivastava, J´ erˆ ome Sallet, Christopher R. Butler, and Robin O. Cleve- land. Ultrasound neuromodulation: a review of results, mechanisms and safety.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 45(7):1509–1536, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    R. M. Jones, C. F. Caskey, P. A. Dayton, ¨O. Oralkan, and Gianmarco F. Pinton. Transcranial neu- romodulation array with imaging aperture for simultaneous multifocus stimulation in nonhuman primates.IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 69(1):261–272, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Pinton, J.-F

    Gianmarco F. Pinton, J.-F. Aubry, M. Fink, and M. Tanter. Numerical prediction of frequency dependent 3d maps of mechanical index thresholds in ultrasonic brain therapy.Medical Physics, 39(1):455–467, 2012

    2012

  8. [8]

    Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging: in vivo demonstration of clinical feasibility.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 28(2):227–235, 2002

    Kathryn Nightingale, Mary Scott Soo, Roger Nightingale, and Gregg Trahey. Acoustic radiation force impulse imaging: in vivo demonstration of clinical feasibility.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 28(2):227–235, 2002

    2002

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Palmeri and Kathryn R

    Mark L. Palmeri and Kathryn R. Nightingale. Acoustic radiation force-based elasticity imaging methods.Interface Focus, 1(4):553–564, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Wesley L. Nyborg. Acoustic streaming. In Warren P. Mason, editor,Physical Acoustics, volume 2, pages 265–331. Academic Press, 1965

    1965

  3. [11]

    G. R. Torr. The acoustic radiation force.American Journal of Physics, 52(5):402–408, 1984

    1984

  4. [12]

    Neuromodulation with transcranial focused ultrasound.Neurosurgical Focus, 44(2):E14, 2018

    Jan Kubanek. Neuromodulation with transcranial focused ultrasound.Neurosurgical Focus, 44(2):E14, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Mittelstein, Robert C

    Sangjin Yoo, David R. Mittelstein, Robert C. Hurt, J´ erˆ ome Lacroix, and Mikhail G. Shapiro. Focused ultrasound excites cortical neurons via mechanosensitive calcium accumulation and ion channel amplification.Nature Communications, 13(1):493, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Thomas J. R. Hughes.The Finite Element Method: Linear Static and Dynamic Finite Element Analysis. Dover, 2000. 17 G F Pinton

    2000

  7. [15]

    O. C. Zienkiewicz, R. L. Taylor, and J. Z. Zhu.The Finite Element Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals. Elsevier, 6th edition, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Palmeri, Bo Qiang, Shigao Chen, and Matthew W

    Mark L. Palmeri, Bo Qiang, Shigao Chen, and Matthew W. Urban. Guidelines for finite-element modeling of acoustic radiation force-induced shear wave propagation in tissue-mimicking media. IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 64(1):78–92, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping.IEEE TUFFC, 51(4):396–409, 2004

    J´ er´ emie Bercoff, Mickael Tanter, and Mathias Fink. Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping.IEEE TUFFC, 51(4):396–409, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    Szabo.Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging: Inside Out

    Thomas L. Szabo.Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging: Inside Out. Academic Press, 2nd edition, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    Duck.Physical Properties of Tissue: A Comprehensive Reference Book

    Francis A. Duck.Physical Properties of Tissue: A Comprehensive Reference Book. Academic Press, 1990

    1990

  12. [20]

    Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 29(12):1705–1713, 2003

    Laurent Sandrin et al. Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 29(12):1705–1713, 2003

    2003

  13. [21]

    Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using supersonic shear imaging.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 34(9):1373–1386, 2008

    Mickael Tanter, J´ er´ emie Bercoff, Alexandra Athanasiou, et al. Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using supersonic shear imaging.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 34(9):1373–1386, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Urban, and Robert J

    Yiqun Yang, Matthew W. Urban, and Robert J. McGough. Gpu-based Green’s function simulations of shear waves generated by an applied acoustic radiation force in elastic and viscoelastic models. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 63(10):10NT01, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Palmeri, Amy C

    Mark L. Palmeri, Amy C. Sharma, Richard R. Bouchard, Roger W. Nightingale, and Kathryn R. Nightingale. A finite-element method model of soft tissue response to impulsive acoustic radiation force.IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 52(10):16...

    2005

  16. [24]

    Nightingale, Roger W

    Kathryn R. Nightingale, Roger W. Nightingale, Mark L. Palmeri, and Gregg E. Trahey. A finite element model of remote palpation of breast lesions using radiation force: factors affecting tissue displacement.Ultrasonic Imaging, 22(1):35–54, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Palmeri, Michael H

    Mark L. Palmeri, Michael H. Wang, Jeremy J. Dahl, Kathryn D. Frinkley, and Kathryn R. Nightin- gale. Quantifying hepatic shear modulus in vivo using acoustic radiation force.Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 34(4):546–558, 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    K. H. Lee, B. A. Szajewski, Z. Hah, K. J. Parker, and A. M. Maniatty. Modeling shear waves through a viscoelastic medium induced by acoustic radiation force.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 28(6):678–696, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    Palmeri and Kathryn R

    Mark L. Palmeri and Kathryn R. Nightingale. On the thermal effects associated with radiation force imaging of soft tissue.IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 51(5):551–565, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Marko Orescanin, Yue Wang, and Michael F. Insana. 3-D FDTD simulation of shear waves for evaluation of complex modulus imaging.IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 58(2):389–398, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Langdon, K

    J. Langdon, K. Mercado, D. Dalecki, and S. McAleavey. Compensating for Scholte waves in single track location shearwave elasticity imaging.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 137(4):2364, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Brigham, Sara Aristizabal, James F

    Bo Qiang, John C. Brigham, Sara Aristizabal, James F. Greenleaf, Xiaoming Zhang, and Matthew W. Urban. Modeling transversely isotropic, viscoelastic, incompressible tissue-like ma- terials with application in ultrasound shear wave elastography.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 60...

    2015

  23. [31]

    Gennisson, S

    J.-L. Gennisson, S. Catheline, S. Chaffa ¨ ı, and M. Fink. Transient elastography in anisotropic medium: application to the measurement of slow and fast shear wave speeds in muscles.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(1):536–541, 2003

    2003

  24. [32]

    Call´ e, J

    S. Call´ e, J. Remenieras, O. Bou Matar, M. E. Hachemi, and F. Patat. Temporal analysis of tissue displacement induced by a transient ultrasound radiation force.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118(5):2829–2840, 2005

    2005

  25. [33]

    Chatelin, I

    S. Chatelin, I. Charpentier, N. Corbin, L. Meylheuc, and J. Vappou. An automatic differentiation- based gradient method for inversion of the shear wave equation in magnetic resonance elastography: specific application in fibrous soft tissues.Physics in Medicine & Biology, 61(1...

    2016

  26. [34]

    Y. C. Fung.Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues. Springer, 2nd edition, 1993

    1993

  27. [35]

    B. A. Auld.Acoustic Fields and Waves in Solids. Wiley, 1973

    1973

  28. [36]

    Graff.Wave Motion in Elastic Solids

    Karl F. Graff.Wave Motion in Elastic Solids. Dover, 1991

    1991

  29. [37]

    J. D. Achenbach.Wave Propagation in Elastic Solids. North-Holland, 1973

    1973

  30. [38]

    Catheline, J.-L

    S. Catheline, J.-L. Gennisson, G. Delon, M. Fink, R. Sinkus, S. Abouelkaram, and J. Culioli. Measurement of viscoelastic properties of homogeneous soft solid using transient elastography: an inverse problem approach.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116(6):3734...

    2004

  31. [39]

    Ferry.Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers

    John D. Ferry.Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers. Wiley, 3rd edition, 1980

    1980

  32. [40]

    Hagness.Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time- Domain Method

    Allen Taflove and Susan C. Hagness.Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time- Domain Method. Artech House, 3rd edition, 2005

    2005

  33. [41]

    Courant, K

    R. Courant, K. Friedrichs, and H. Lewy. ¨Uber die partiellen Differenzengleichungen der mathema- tischen Physik.Mathematische Annalen, 100(1):32–74, 1928

    1928

  34. [42]

    An introduction to the conjugate gradient method without the agonizing pain

    Jonathan Richard Shewchuk. An introduction to the conjugate gradient method without the agonizing pain. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, 1994

    1994

  35. [43]

    Golub and Charles F

    Gene H. Golub and Charles F. Van Loan.Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, 4th edition, 2013

    2013

  36. [44]

    Gianmarco F. Pinton. Ultrasound imaging of the human body with three dimensional full-wave nonlinear acoustics. Part 1: simulations methods.arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06934, 2020. Fullwave simulation framework

    2003 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Evaluation of the angular spectrum approach for sim- ulations of near-field pressures.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(1):68–76, 2008

    Xiaozheng Zeng and Robert J McGough. Evaluation of the angular spectrum approach for sim- ulations of near-field pressures.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(1):68–76, 2008

    2008

  38. [46]

    A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves

    Jean-Pierre B´ erenger. A perfectly matched layer for the absorption of electromagnetic waves. Journal of Computational Physics, 114(2):185–200, 1994

    1994

  39. [47]

    Application of the perfectly matched absorbing layer model to the linear elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heterogeneous media.Geophysics, 66(1):294– 307, 2001

    Francis Collino and Chrysoula Tsogka. Application of the perfectly matched absorbing layer model to the linear elastodynamic problem in anisotropic heterogeneous media.Geophysics, 66(1):294– 307, 2001

    2001

  40. [48]

    McCall, Robert M

    Jacob R. McCall, Robert M. Jones, Francisco Santibanez, Katherine Latham, Julien Zou, Paul A. Dayton, and Gianmarco F. Pinton. The development of a 1.25 MHz 1024-channel sparse array for human transcranial imaging: In vitro characterization.Measurement Science and Technology, ...

    2024

  41. [49]

    A micro-CT of a human skull

    Thomas Kirchner. A micro-CT of a human skull. Micro-CT dataset, Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.6108435; arXiv:2202.11519, 2022. 19 G F Pinton

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Connor, Greg T

    Christopher W. Connor, Greg T. Clement, and Kullervo Hynynen. A unified model for the speed of sound in cranial bone based on genetic algorithm optimization.Physics in Medicine and Biology, 47(22):3925–3944, 2002

    2002

  43. [51]

    Pinton, Jeremy Dahl, Steve Rosenzweig, and Gregg E

    Gianmarco F. Pinton, Jeremy Dahl, Steve Rosenzweig, and Gregg E. Trahey. A heterogeneous nonlinear attenuating full-wave model of ultrasound.IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferro- electrics, and Frequency Control, 56(3):474–488, 2009

    2009

  44. [52]

    White mat- ter tract transcranial ultrasound stimulation, a computational study.Computers in Biology and Medicine, 140:105094, 2022

    Ciara Felix, Davide Folloni, Haoyu Chen, Jerome Sallet, and Antoine Jerusalem. White mat- ter tract transcranial ultrasound stimulation, a computational study.Computers in Biology and Medicine, 140:105094, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    B. B. Tripathi, D. Espindola, and Gianmarco F. Pinton. Piecewise parabolic method for simulat- ing one-dimensional shear shock wave propagation in tissue-mimicking phantoms.Shock Waves, 27(6):879–888, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    Espindola, S

    D. Espindola, S. Lee, and Gianmarco F. Pinton. Shear shock waves observed in the brain.Physical Review Applied, 8(4):044024, 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    B. B. Tripathi, D. Esp ´ ındola, and Gianmarco F. Pinton. Modeling and simulations of two dimen- sional propagation of shear shock waves in relaxing soft solids.Journal of Computational Physics, 395:205–222, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    Urban, Shigao Chen, and Mostafa Fatemi

    Matthew W. Urban, Shigao Chen, and Mostafa Fatemi. A review of shearwave dispersion ul- trasound vibrometry (sduv) and its applications.Current Medical Imaging Reviews, 8(1):27–36, 2012. 20

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.