RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Both single-shot diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging (EPI) and line scan diffusion imaging (LSDI) can be used to obtain magnetic resonance diffusion tensor data and to calculate directionally invariant diffusion anisotropy indices, ie, indirect measures of the organization and coherence of white matter fibers in the brain. To date, there has been no comparison of EPI and LSDI. Because EPI is the most commonly used technique for acquiring diffusion tensor data, it is important to understand the limitations and advantages of LSDI relative to EPI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five healthy volunteers underwent EPI and LSDI diffusion on a 1.5 Tesla magnet (General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI). Four-mm thick coronal sections, covering the entire brain, were obtained. In addition, one subject was tested with both sequences over four sessions. For each image voxel, eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the diffusion tensor were calculated, and fractional anisotropy (FA) was derived. Several regions of interest were delineated, and for each, mean FA and estimated mean standard deviation were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Results showed no significant differences between EPI and LSDI for mean FA for the five subjects. When intersession reproducibility for one subject was evaluated, there was a significant difference between EPI and LSDI in FA for the corpus callosum and the right uncinate fasciculus. Moreover, errors associated with each FA measure were larger for EPI than for LSDI. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that both EPI- and LSDI-derived FA measures are sufficiently robust. However, when higher accuracy is needed, LSDI provides smaller error and smaller inter-subject and inter-session variability than EPI.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Both single-shot diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging (EPI) and line scan diffusion imaging (LSDI) can be used to obtain magnetic resonance diffusion tensor data and to calculate directionally invariant diffusion anisotropy indices, ie, indirect measures of the organization and coherence of white matter fibers in the brain. To date, there has been no comparison of EPI and LSDI. Because EPI is the most commonly used technique for acquiring diffusion tensor data, it is important to understand the limitations and advantages of LSDI relative to EPI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five healthy volunteers underwent EPI and LSDI diffusion on a 1.5 Tesla magnet (General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI). Four-mm thick coronal sections, covering the entire brain, were obtained. In addition, one subject was tested with both sequences over four sessions. For each image voxel, eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the diffusion tensor were calculated, and fractional anisotropy (FA) was derived. Several regions of interest were delineated, and for each, mean FA and estimated mean standard deviation were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Results showed no significant differences between EPI and LSDI for mean FA for the five subjects. When intersession reproducibility for one subject was evaluated, there was a significant difference between EPI and LSDI in FA for the corpus callosum and the right uncinate fasciculus. Moreover, errors associated with each FA measure were larger for EPI than for LSDI. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that both EPI- and LSDI-derived FA measures are sufficiently robust. However, when higher accuracy is needed, LSDI provides smaller error and smaller inter-subject and inter-session variability than EPI.
Authors: N G Papadakis; D Xing; G C Houston; J M Smith; M I Smith; M F James; A A Parsons; C L Huang; L D Hall; T A Carpenter Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Marek Kubicki; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Stephan E Maier; Melissa Frumin; Paul G Nestor; Dean F Salisbury; Ron Kikinis; Ferenc A Jolesz; Robert W McCarley; Martha E Shenton Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Marek Kubicki; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Stephan E Maier; Hatsuho Mamata; Melissa Frumin; Hal Ersner-Hershfield; Ron Kikinis; Ferenc A Jolesz; Robert McCarley; Martha E Shenton Journal: Harv Rev Psychiatry Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Roland Bammer; Martin Auer; Stephen L Keeling; Michael Augustin; Lara A Stables; Rupert W Prokesch; Rudolf Stollberger; Michael E Moseley; Franz Fazekas Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hatsuho Mamata; Yoshiaki Mamata; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Martha E Shenton; Ron Kikinis; Ferenc A Jolesz; Stephan E Maier Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Hae-Jeong Park; Marek Kubicki; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Ion-Florin Talos; Anders Brun; Steve Peiper; Ron Kikinis; Ference A Jolesz; Robert W McCarley; Martha E Shenton Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Motoaki Nakamura; Robert W McCarley; Marek Kubicki; Chandlee C Dickey; Margaret A Niznikiewicz; Martina M Voglmaier; Larry J Seidman; Stephan E Maier; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Ron Kikinis; Martha E Shenton Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2005-06-22 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Stefano Marenco; Robert Rawlings; Gustavo K Rohde; Alan S Barnett; Robyn A Honea; Carlo Pierpaoli; Daniel R Weinberger Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2006-06-21 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: James J Levitt; Marek Kubicki; Paul G Nestor; Hal Ersner-Hershfield; C-F Westin; Jorge L Alvarado; Ron Kikinis; Ferenc A Jolesz; Robert W McCarley; Martha E Shenton Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2010-11-05 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Christoph Mulert; Valerie Kirsch; Thomas J Whitford; Jorge Alvarado; Paula Pelavin; Robert W McCarley; Marek Kubicki; Dean F Salisbury; Martha E Shenton Journal: World J Biol Psychiatry Date: 2011-05-30 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Toshiro Kawashima; Motoaki Nakamura; Sylvain Bouix; Marek Kubicki; Dean F Salisbury; Carl-Fredrik Westin; Robert W McCarley; Martha E Shenton Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2009-03-28 Impact factor: 4.939