Literature DB >> 23091174

Cognition and sensation in very high static magnetic fields: a randomized case-crossover study with different field strengths.

Angela Heinrich1, Anne Szostek, Patric Meyer, Frauke Nees, Jaane Rauschenberg, Jens Gröbner, Maria Gilles, Georgios Paslakis, Michael Deuschle, Wolfhard Semmler, Herta Flor.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To establish the extent to which representative cognitive functions in subjects undergoing magnetic resonance (MR) imaging are acutely impaired by static magnetic fields of varying field strengths.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the local ethics committee, and informed consent was obtained from all subjects. In this single-blind case-crossover study, 41 healthy subjects underwent an extensive neuropsychologic examination while in MR units of differing field strengths (1.5, 3.0, and 7.0 T), including a mock imager with no magnetic field as a control condition. Subjects were blinded to field strength. Tests were performed while subjects were lying still in the MR unit and while the examination table was moved. The tests covered a representative set of cognitive functions, such as memory, eye-hand coordination, attention, reaction time, and visual discrimination. Subjective sensory perceptions were also assessed. Effects were analyzed with a repeated-measures analysis of variance; the within-subject factors were field strength (0, 1.5, 3.0, and 7.0 T) and state (static, dynamic).
RESULTS: Static magnetic fields were not found to have a significant effect on cognitive function at any field strength. However, sensory perceptions did vary according to field strength. Dizziness, nystagmus, phosphenes, and head ringing were related to the strength of the static magnetic field.
CONCLUSION: Static magnetic fields as high as 7.0 T did not have a significant effect on cognition. RSNA, 2012

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23091174     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112172

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  11 in total

1.  Transient health symptoms of MRI staff working with 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla scanners in the UK.

Authors:  Frank de Vocht; Evridiki Batistatou; Anna Mölter; Hans Kromhout; Kristel Schaap; Martie van Tongeren; Stuart Crozier; Penny Gowland; Stephen Keevil
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  [Problems and chances of high field magnetic resonance imaging].

Authors:  M E Ladd; M Bock
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  10.5 T MRI static field effects on human cognitive, vestibular, and physiological function.

Authors:  Andrea Grant; Gregory J Metzger; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Gregor Adriany; Cheryl Olman; Lin Zhang; Joseph Koopermeiners; Yiğitcan Eryaman; Margaret Koeritzer; Meredith E Adams; Thomas R Henry; Kamil Uğurbil
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 2.546

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance safety.

Authors:  Steffen Sammet
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-03

5.  Long-term behavioral effects observed in mice chronically exposed to static ultra-high magnetic fields.

Authors:  Ivan Tkáč; Michael A Benneyworth; Tessa Nichols-Meade; Elizabeth L Steuer; Sarah N Larson; Gregory J Metzger; Kâmil Uğurbil
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 4.668

6.  Recording visual evoked potentials and auditory evoked P300 at 9.4T static magnetic field.

Authors:  Jorge Arrubla; Irene Neuner; David Hahn; Frank Boers; N Jon Shah
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Vestibular effects of a 7 Tesla MRI examination compared to 1.5 T and 0 T in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Jens M Theysohn; Oliver Kraff; Kristina Eilers; Dorian Andrade; Marcus Gerwig; Dagmar Timmann; Franz Schmitt; Mark E Ladd; Susanne C Ladd; Andreas K Bitz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Occupational exposure of healthcare and research staff to static magnetic stray fields from 1.5-7 Tesla MRI scanners is associated with reporting of transient symptoms.

Authors:  Kristel Schaap; Yvette Christopher-de Vries; Catherine K Mason; Frank de Vocht; Lützen Portengen; Hans Kromhout
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2014-04-08       Impact factor: 4.402

9.  On the subjective acceptance during cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at 7.0 Tesla.

Authors:  Sabrina Klix; Antje Els; Katharina Paul; Andreas Graessl; Celal Oezerdem; Oliver Weinberger; Lukas Winter; Christof Thalhammer; Till Huelnhagen; Jan Rieger; Heidrun Mehling; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Thoralf Niendorf
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-01-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The impact of MRI scanner environment on perceptual decision-making.

Authors:  Leendert van Maanen; Birte U Forstmann; Max C Keuken; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers; Andrew Heathcote
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2016-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.