Ziyue Wu1, Yoon-Chul Kim, Michael C K Khoo, Krishna S Nayak. 1. Ming Hsieh Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate an independent linear model for gradient acoustic noise on a conventional MRI scanner, and to explore implications for acoustic noise reduction in routine imaging. METHODS: Acoustic noise generated from each physical gradient axis was modeled as the prescribed gradient waveform passed through a linear time-invariant system. Homogeneity and superposition properties were experimentally determined. We also developed a new method to correct relative time shifts between the measured impulse responses for different physical gradient axes. Model accuracy was determined by comparing predicted and measured sound using normalized energy difference. Transfer functions were also measured in subjects with different body habitus and at multiple microphone locations. RESULTS: Both superposition and homogeneity held for each physical gradient axis with errors less than 3%. When all gradients were on simultaneous sound prediction, error was reduced from 32% to 4% after time-shift correction. Transfer functions also showed high sensitivity to body habitus and microphone location. CONCLUSION: The independent linear model predicts MRI acoustic noise with less than 4% error. Acoustic transfer functions are highly sensitive to body habitus and position within the bore, making it challenging to produce a general approach to acoustic noise reduction based on avoiding system resonance peaks.
PURPOSE: To evaluate an independent linear model for gradient acoustic noise on a conventional MRI scanner, and to explore implications for acoustic noise reduction in routine imaging. METHODS: Acoustic noise generated from each physical gradient axis was modeled as the prescribed gradient waveform passed through a linear time-invariant system. Homogeneity and superposition properties were experimentally determined. We also developed a new method to correct relative time shifts between the measured impulse responses for different physical gradient axes. Model accuracy was determined by comparing predicted and measured sound using normalized energy difference. Transfer functions were also measured in subjects with different body habitus and at multiple microphone locations. RESULTS: Both superposition and homogeneity held for each physical gradient axis with errors less than 3%. When all gradients were on simultaneous sound prediction, error was reduced from 32% to 4% after time-shift correction. Transfer functions also showed high sensitivity to body habitus and microphone location. CONCLUSION: The independent linear model predicts MRI acoustic noise with less than 4% error. Acoustic transfer functions are highly sensitive to body habitus and position within the bore, making it challenging to produce a general approach to acoustic noise reduction based on avoiding system resonance peaks.
Authors: K Ikeda; M Ogura; T Oshima; H Suzuki; S Higano; S Takahashi; H Kurosawa; W Hida; H Matsuoka; T Takasaka Journal: Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 1.547
Authors: William A Edelstein; Robert A Hedeen; Richard P Mallozzi; Sayed Amr El-Hamamsy; Robert A Ackermann; Timothy J Havens Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: William A Edelstein; Tesfaye K Kidane; Victor Taracila; Tanvir N Baig; Timothy P Eagan; Yu-Chung N Cheng; Robert W Brown; John A Mallick Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Carlos V Rizzo Sierra; Maarten J Versluis; Johannes M Hoogduin; Hendrikus Diek Duifhuis Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Lewis K Shin; Andrew B Holbrook; Robson Capasso; Clete A Kushida; Nelson B Powell; Nancy J Fischbein; Kim Butts Pauly Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Johan N van der Meer; Dennis F R Heijtel; Guus van Hest; Geert-Jan Plattèl; Matthijs J P van Osch; Eus J W van Someren; Ed T vanBavel; Aart J Nederveen Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Robert J Fleck; Stacey L Ishman; Sally R Shott; Ephraim J Gutmark; Keith B McConnell; Mohamed Mahmoud; Goutham Mylavarapu; Dhananjay R Subramaniam; Rhonda Szczesniak; Raouf S Amin Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Roberta M Kato; Yoon-Chul Kim; Biswas Joshi; Shirleen Loloyan; Choo Phei Wee; Ziyue Wu; Winston H Tran; Thomas G Keens; Michael C K Khoo; Krishna S Nayak; Sally L Davidson Ward Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2018-12