2023
DOI: 10.1109/tbme.2022.3221887
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Characterization of the Targeting Accuracy of a Neuronavigation-Guided Transcranial FUS System In Vitro, In Vivo, and In Silico

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The aperture of the transducer was 65 mm, and the focal distance was 65 mm (f-number = 1). As reported in our previous study 45 , the axial and lateral full width at half maximums (FWHM) of the FUS transducer were 20 mm and 3.0 mm, respectively. The FUS transducer was integrated with a passive acoustic detector at its center.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The aperture of the transducer was 65 mm, and the focal distance was 65 mm (f-number = 1). As reported in our previous study 45 , the axial and lateral full width at half maximums (FWHM) of the FUS transducer were 20 mm and 3.0 mm, respectively. The FUS transducer was integrated with a passive acoustic detector at its center.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 69%
“…The trajectory was selected using the following criteria: close to 90° incident angle (best effort), focus depth below skin <35 mm (limited by the focal length of our FUS transducer), and avoiding ultrasound beam passing through the ear lobe and eye. A full-wave acoustic simulation using the k-Wave toolbox was performed to estimate the ultrasound pressure field distribution inside the brain and calculate the skull attenuation using methods reported in our previous publication 45 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The larger Error Opti,Sim with the skull comprised of 1.1 ± 0.5 mm of axial error which can be attributed to skull-specific effects captured in simulation. Although we did notice minor focal shifts with the presence of the ex vivo skull, other simulation studies of ex vivo and in situ scenarios indicate larger focal shifts may be expected depending on the skull characteristics, brain target, and transducer properties [11], [22], [53]. This study largely focused on the spatial error of the simulation workflow where we used previously validated acoustic parameters [48].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…A water bladder was attached to the FUS transducer with an inlet and outlet for degassing the water. The output of the FUS transducer was calibrated using a hydrophone (HGL-0200, Onda Corp., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) connected with a pre-amplifier (AG-20X0, Onda Corp., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in a water tank using our previous established procedure 29 and the acoustic pressure at the FUS transducer focus was measured and reported in this study.…”
Section: Ethodsmentioning
confidence: 99%