# Sources and provenance

Last evidence pass: 6 August 2026.

TAS prioritises supplied primary material, primary research, consensus reports, and regulator documentation. A citation supports only the statement for which it is listed; it does not validate the entire Topological Acoustic Stylus proposal.

## Supplied TAS concept material

1. AMENRA S-DMT Collective. **White Paper 83: The Topological Acoustic Stylus — Unified Reverse MRI Cymatics via Thixotropic Phase Locking on the L39 Golden Cross Lattice.** August 2026. Preserved as [`source/white-paper-83-topological-acoustic-stylus.pdf`](../source/white-paper-83-topological-acoustic-stylus.pdf).
2. AMENRA S-DMT Collective. **Writing the Source Code of Biology: The Topological Acoustic Stylus — A Blueprint for Reverse MRI Cymatics.** Twelve-slide supplied deck. Preserved as [`source/topological-acoustic-stylus-slides.pdf`](../source/topological-acoustic-stylus-slides.pdf).
3. Supplied concept poster. Preserved as [`source/topological-acoustic-stylus-poster.png`](../source/topological-acoustic-stylus-poster.png).

The source paper names “University of Fukui (Ueda et al.)” for acoustic holography and “NTT Research (Haptoclone, U. Tokyo)” for haptic holography without complete bibliographic records. These references cannot be assumed to support the paper's biological translation until titles, authors, venues, years, and persistent identifiers are supplied.

## Ultrasound output and reporting

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Marketing Clearance of Diagnostic Ultrasound Systems and Transducers — Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff](https://www.fda.gov/media/71100/download). Definitions include derated peak rarefactional pressure, acoustic intensity quantities, Mechanical Index, and Thermal Index context.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Ultrasound Imaging](https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/medical-imaging/ultrasound-imaging). Regulator overview and adverse-event reporting context.
3. Martin E, Aubry J-F, Schafer M, Verhagen L, Treeby B, Pauly KB. [ITRUSST consensus on standardised reporting for transcranial ultrasound stimulation](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38670224/). *Brain Stimulation*. 2024;17(3):607–615. DOI: [10.1016/j.brs.2024.04.013](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2024.04.013).
4. Aubry J-F et al. [ITRUSST Consensus on Biophysical Safety for Transcranial Ultrasonic Stimulation](https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.05359). Expert consensus; informs but does not replace standards, regulation, or ethics review.

## Phased arrays and heterogeneous focusing

1. Gâteau J, Marsac L, Pernot M, Aubry J-F, Tanter M, Fink M. [Transcranial ultrasonic therapy based on time reversal of acoustically induced cavitation bubble signature](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3081822/). *IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering*. 2010;57(1):134–144. Experimental ex vivo skull focusing.
2. Aubry J-F et al. [Transcostal high-intensity-focused ultrasound: ex vivo adaptive focusing feasibility study](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3021953/). Experimental phased-array / time-reversal study with pressure and temperature measurements.
3. Jiménez-Gambín S, Jiménez N, Benlloch JM, Camarena F. [Holograms to focus arbitrary ultrasonic fields through the skull](https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.06716). Experimental, numerical, and theoretical holographic-lens work in skull phantoms.

## Shear-wave generation and elastography

1. Sarvazyan AP, Rudenko OV, Swanson SD, Fowlkes JB, Emelianov SY. [Shear wave elasticity imaging: a new ultrasonic technology of medical diagnostics](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9974896/). *Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology*. 1998;24(9):1419–1435. DOI: [10.1016/S0301-5629(98)00110-0](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(98)00110-0).

This supports ultrasound-generated shear waves as a phenomenon. It does not supply the White Paper 83 “Jitterbug operator.”

## Mechanosensitive channels

1. Qiu Z et al. [The mechanosensitive ion channel PIEZO1 significantly mediates in vitro ultrasonic stimulation of neurons](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6849147/). *iScience*. 2019;21:448–457. DOI: [10.1016/j.isci.2019.10.037](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2019.10.037).
2. Zhu J et al. [The mechanosensitive ion channel Piezo1 contributes to ultrasound neuromodulation](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10161134/). *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*. 2023;120(18):e2221953120. DOI: [10.1073/pnas.2221953120](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2221953120).
3. Prieto ML et al. [Activation of PIEZO1 but not NaV1.2 channels by ultrasound at 43 MHz](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5914535/). *Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology*. 2018;44(6):1217–1232. DOI: [10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.12.020](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.12.020).

These papers concern specific preparations and exposure regimes. They do not establish human tissue regeneration, a universal phase topology, or equivalent activation of PIEZO2, TRPV4, and YAP/TAZ.

## Mid-air ultrasound haptics

1. Morisaki T et al. [Noncontact haptic rendering of static contact with convex surface using circular movement of ultrasound focus on finger pad](https://arxiv.org/html/2301.11572v2). Controlled haptic experiments using a moving ultrasound focus.
2. NTT Corporation. [Creating realistic haptic sensations in mid-air using ultrasound](https://group.ntt/en/newsrelease/2025/05/13/250513b.html). Official description of collaborative NTT / University of Tokyo work.

Airborne haptic perception demonstrates controllable radiation-pressure fields. It is not evidence for an internal regenerative scaffold.

## Acoustic attenuation and thermal modelling context

1. Patterson B et al. [Experimental measurements of ultrasound attenuation in human skull bone and brain tissue](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7185178/). Demonstrates that the conventional 0.3 dB/cm/MHz derating assumption can differ from measured tissue attenuation.
2. Dillon CR et al. [Magnetic resonance temperature imaging-based validation of a numerical model for focused ultrasound thermal therapy](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4510856/). Illustrates the modelling and measurement required for credible bioheat prediction.

## White Paper 83 “water memory” anchor

The paper cites Masaru Emoto and Gerald Pollack as a single empirical anchor for the statement “water stores geometric phase information,” but supplies no experiment defining the required state variable, write process, retention time, readout, or causal link to regeneration.

Radin et al. reported blinded aesthetic ratings of ice-crystal photographs in an intention experiment: [PubMed 16979104](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16979104/). Even if taken at face value, that endpoint does not demonstrate persistent ultrasonic phase storage, coupling-gel preconditioning, or a regenerative mechanism. TAS therefore does not implement “water memory.”

## Material values used in TAS

The v0.1 material table contains representative educational values selected to make the two-layer model interactive. They are explicitly marked as proxies. They must not be reused as a validated tissue-property database.

A future research-grade release should replace each scalar with a versioned record containing:

- specimen and preparation;
- temperature;
- frequency range and fitted law;
- longitudinal and shear quantities where applicable;
- anisotropy and uncertainty;
- measurement method; and
- persistent source identifier.