Reply to comment by A. G. J. Hilberts and P. A. Troch on "Influence of capillarity on a simple harmonic oscillating water table: Sand column experiments and modeling"

We thank Hilberts and Troch [2006] for their comment on our paper [Cartwright et al, 2005]. Before proceeding with our specific replies to the comments we would first like to clarify the definitions and meanings of equations (1)-(3) as presented by Hilberts and Troch [2006]. First, equation (1) is the fundamental definition of the (complex) effective porosity as derived by Nielsen and Perrochet [2000]. Equations (2) and (3), however, represent the linear frequency response function of the water table in the sand column responding to simple harmonic forcing. This function, which was validated by Nielsen and Perrochet [2000], provides an alternative method for estimating the complex effective porosity from the experimental sand column data in the absence of direct measurements of h_(tot) (which are required if equation (1) is to be used).

Comparison of two-dimensional speckle and tissue velocity based strain and validation with harmonic phase magnetic resonance imaging

Two-dimensional (2-D) strain (epsilon(2-D)) on the basis of speckle tracking is a new technique for strain measurement. This study sought to validate epsilon(2-D) and tissue velocity imaging (TVI)based strain (epsilon(TVI)) with tagged harmonic-phase (HARP) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Thirty patients (mean age. 62 +/- 11 years) with known or suspected ischemic heart disease were evaluated. Wall motion (wall motion score index 1.55 +/- 0.46) was assessed by an expert observer. Three apical images were obtained for longitudinal strain (16 segments) and 3 short-axis images for radial and circumferential strain (18 segments). Radial epsilon(TVI) was obtained in the posterior wall. HARP MRI was used to measure principal strain, expressed as maximal length change in each direction. Values for epsilon(2-D), epsilon(TVI), and HARP MRI were comparable for all 3 strain directions and were reduced in dysfunctional segments. The mean difference and correlation between longitudinal epsilon(2-D) and HARP MRI (2.1 +/- 5.5%, r = 0.51, p < 0.001) were similar to those between longitudinal epsilon(TVI), and HARP MRI (1.1 +/- 6.7%, r = 0.40, p < 0.001). The mean difference and correlation were more favorable between radial epsilon(2-D) and HARP MRI (0.4 +/- 10.2%, r = 0.60, p < 0.001) than between radial epsilon(TVI), and HARP MRI (3.4 +/- 10.5%, r = 0.47, p < 0.001). For circumferential strain, the mean difference and correlation between epsilon(2-D) and HARP MRI were 0.7 +/- 5.4% and r = 0.51 (p < 0.001), respectively. In conclusion, the modest correlations of echocardiographic and HARP MRI strain reflect the technical challenges of the 2 techniques. Nonetheless, epsilon(2-D) provides a reliable tool to quantify regional function, with radial measurements being more accurate and feasible than with TVI. Unlike epsilon(TVI), epsilon(2-D) provides circumferential measurements. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.