Literature DB >> 11477644

A comparison between human magnetostimulation thresholds in whole-body and head/neck gradient coils.

B A Chronik1, B K Rutt.   

Abstract

Gradient coil magnetostimulation thresholds were measured in a group of 20 volunteers in both a whole-body gradient coil and a head/neck gradient coil. Both coils were operated using both x and y axes simultaneously (xy oblique mode). The waveform applied was a 64-lobe trapezoidal train with 1-ms flat-tops and varying rise times. Thresholds were based on the subjects' perception of stimulation, and painful sensations were not elicited. Thresholds were expressed in terms of the total gradient excursion required to cause stimulation as a function of the duration of the excursion. Thresholds for each subject were fit to a linear model, and values for the threshold curve slope (SR(min)) and vertical axis intercept (DeltaG(min)) were extracted. For the body coil, the mean values were: SR(min) = 62.2 mT/m/ms, DeltaG(min) = 44.4 mT/m. For the head/neck coil, the mean values were: SR(min) = 87.3 mT/m/ms, DeltaG(min) = 78.9 mT/m. These curve parameters were combined with calculated values for the induced electric field as a function of position within the coil to yield the tissue specific parameters E(r) (electric field rheobase) and tau(c) (chronaxie). For tissue stimulated within the body coil, the mean values were: E(r) = 1.8 V/m, tau(c) = 770 micros. For tissue stimulated within the head/neck coil, the mean values were: E(r) = 1.3 V/m, tau(c) = 1100 micros. Scalar potential contributions were not included in the calculation of induced electric fields. The mean threshold curves were combined with the gradient system performance curves to produce operational limit curves. The operational limit curves for the head/neck coil system were verified to be higher than those of the whole-body coil; however, the head/neck system was also found to be physiologically limited over a greater range of its operation than was the body coil. Subject thresholds between the two coils were not well correlated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11477644     DOI: 10.1002/mrm.1202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   4.668


  10 in total

1.  High slew-rate head-only gradient for improving distortion in echo planar imaging: Preliminary experience.

Authors:  Ek T Tan; Seung-Kyun Lee; Paul T Weavers; Dominic Graziani; Joseph E Piel; Yunhong Shu; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein; Thomas K F Foo
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Lightweight, compact, and high-performance 3T MR system for imaging the brain and extremities.

Authors:  Thomas K F Foo; Evangelos Laskaris; Mark Vermilyea; Minfeng Xu; Paul Thompson; Gene Conte; Christopher Van Epps; Christopher Immer; Seung-Kyun Lee; Ek T Tan; Dominic Graziani; Jean-Baptise Mathieu; Christopher J Hardy; John F Schenck; Eric Fiveland; Wolfgang Stautner; Justin Ricci; Joseph Piel; Keith Park; Yihe Hua; Ye Bai; Alex Kagan; David Stanley; Paul T Weavers; Erin Gray; Yunhong Shu; Matthew A Frick; Norbert G Campeau; Joshua Trzasko; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Peripheral nerve stimulation characteristics of an asymmetric head-only gradient coil compatible with a high-channel-count receiver array.

Authors:  Seung-Kyun Lee; Jean-Baptiste Mathieu; Dominic Graziani; Joseph Piel; Eric Budesheim; Eric Fiveland; Christopher J Hardy; Ek Tsoon Tan; Bruce Amm; Thomas K-F Foo; Matt A Bernstein; John Huston; Yunhong Shu; John F Schenck
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Sensitivity analysis of neurodynamic and electromagnetic simulation parameters for robust prediction of peripheral nerve stimulation.

Authors:  Valerie Klein; Mathias Davids; Lawrence L Wald; Lothar R Schad; Bastien Guérin
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 5.  Gradient and shim technologies for ultra high field MRI.

Authors:  Simone A Winkler; Franz Schmitt; Hermann Landes; Joshua de Bever; Trevor Wade; Andrew Alejski; Brian K Rutt
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2016-11-30       Impact factor: 6.556

6.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Composite (Dual) Gradients.

Authors:  Dennis L Parker; K Craig Goodrich; J Rock Hadley; Seong-Eun Kim; Sung M Moon; Blaine A Chronik; Ulrich Fontius; Franz Schmitt
Journal:  Concepts Magn Reson Part B Magn Reson Eng       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 1.176

7.  A silent gradient axis for soundless spatial encoding to enable fast and quiet brain imaging.

Authors:  Edwin Versteeg; Dennis W J Klomp; Jeroen C W Siero
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 3.737

Review 8.  Rapid brain MRI acquisition techniques at ultra-high fields.

Authors:  Kawin Setsompop; David A Feinberg; Jonathan R Polimeni
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 4.044

9.  Predicting in vivo MRI Gradient-Field Induced Voltage Levels on Implanted Deep Brain Stimulation Systems Using Neural Networks.

Authors:  M Arcan Erturk; Eric Panken; Mark J Conroy; Jonathan Edmonson; Jeff Kramer; Jacob Chatterton; S Riki Banerjee
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  A plug-and-play, lightweight, single-axis gradient insert design for increasing spatiotemporal resolution in echo planar imaging-based brain imaging.

Authors:  Edwin Versteeg; Tijl A van der Velden; Carel C van Leeuwen; Martino Borgo; Erik R Huijing; Arjan D Hendriks; Jeroen Hendrikse; Dennis W J Klomp; Jeroen C W Siero
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 4.044

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.