Literature DB >> 12695886

Relationship between magnetic field strength and magnetic-resonance-related acoustic noise levels.

Adriaan Moelker1, Piotr A Wielopolski, Peter M T Pattynama.   

Abstract

The need for better signal-to-noise ratios and resolution has pushed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) towards high-field MR-scanners for which only little data on MR-related acoustic noise production have been published. The purpose of this study was to validate the theoretical relationship of sound pressure level (SPL) and static magnetic field strength. This is relevant for allowing adequate comparisons of acoustic data of MR systems at various magnetic field strengths. Acoustic data were acquired during various pulse sequences at field strengths of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 Tesla using the same MRI unit by means of a Helicon rampable magnet. Continuous-equivalent, i.e. time-averaged, linear SPLs and 1/3-octave band frequencies were recorded. Ramping from 0.5 to 1.0 Tesla and from 1.0 to 2.0 Tesla resulted in an SPL increase of 5.7 and 5.2 dB(L), respectively, when averaged over the various pulse sequences. Most of the acoustic energy was in the 1-kHz frequency band, irrespective of magnetic field strength. The relation between field strength and SPL was slightly non-linear, i.e. a slightly less increase at higher field strengths, presumably caused by the elastic properties of the gradient coil encasings.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12695886     DOI: 10.1007/s10334-003-0005-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  MAGMA        ISSN: 0968-5243            Impact factor:   2.310


  16 in total

1.  Acoustic noise during functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  M E Ravicz; J R Melcher; N Y Kiang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Investigation of acoustic noise on 15 MRI scanners from 0.2 T to 3 T.

Authors:  D L Price; J P De Wilde; A M Papadaki; J S Curran; R I Kitney
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Interventional MR imaging at 1.5 T: quantification of sound exposure.

Authors:  Adriaan Moelker; Ronald A J J Maas; Franck Lethimonnier; Peter M T Pattynama
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Sound generation in gradient coil structures for MRI.

Authors:  P Mansfield; P M Glover; J Beaumont
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 4.668

5.  Characterization and prediction of gradient acoustic noise in MR imagers.

Authors:  R A Hedeen; W A Edelstein
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.668

6.  Analysis of acoustic noise in MRI.

Authors:  Z H Cho; S H Park; J H Kim; S C Chung; S T Chung; J Y Chung; C W Moon; J H Yi; C H Sin; E K Wong
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.546

7.  Acoustic analysis of gradient-coil noise in MR imaging.

Authors:  R Hurwitz; S R Lane; R A Bell; M N Brant-Zawadzki
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Short communication: acoustic noise levels during magnetic resonance imaging scanning at 1.5 T.

Authors:  M McJury; A Blug; C Joerger; B Condon; D Wyper
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Potential hearing loss resulting from MR imaging.

Authors:  R E Brummett; J M Talbot; P Charuhas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Measurement of acoustic noise during MR imaging: evaluation of six "worst-case" pulse sequences.

Authors:  F G Shellock; S M Morisoli; M Ziarati
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Acoustic noise concerns in functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Adriaan Moelker; Peter M T Pattynama
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Quiet PROPELLER MRI techniques match the quality of conventional PROPELLER brain imaging techniques.

Authors:  I Corcuera-Solano; A Doshi; P S Pawha; D Gui; A Gaddipati; L Tanenbaum
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 3.  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

4.  Vibration and Noise in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Vocal Tract: Differences between Whole-Body and Open-Air Devices.

Authors:  Jiří Přibil; Anna Přibilová; Ivan Frollo
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  First-Step PPG Signal Analysis for Evaluation of Stress Induced during Scanning in the Open-Air MRI Device.

Authors:  Jiří Přibil; Anna Přibilová; Ivan Frollo
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 6.  Sustainable low-field cardiovascular magnetic resonance in changing healthcare systems.

Authors:  Cathy Qin; Sanjana Murali; Elsa Lee; Vaishnavi Supramaniam; Derek J Hausenloy; Johnes Obungoloch; Joanna Brecher; Rongyu Lin; Hao Ding; Theophilus N Akudjedu; Udunna C Anazodo; Naranamangalam R Jagannathan; Ntobeko A B Ntusi; Orlando P Simonetti; Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Thoralf Niendorf; Regina Mammen; Sola Adeleke
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 9.130

7.  Effect of scanner acoustic background noise on strict resting-state fMRI.

Authors:  C Rondinoni; E Amaro; F Cendes; A C dos Santos; C E G Salmon
Journal:  Braz J Med Biol Res       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 2.590

Review 8.  Methodological challenges and solutions in auditory functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Jonathan E Peelle
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 4.677

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.