Mads Andersen1,2, Lars G Hanson1,2, Kristoffer H Madsen1, Joep Wezel3, Vincent Boer4, Tijl van der Velden4, Matthias J P van Osch3, Dennis Klomp4, Andrew G Webb3, Maarten J Versluis3,5. 1. Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Centre for Functional and Diagnostic Imaging and Research, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Denmark. 2. Biomedical Engineering Group, DTU Elektro, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark. 3. C.J. Gorter Center, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fluctuations of the background magnetic field (B0 ) due to body and breathing motion can lead to significant artifacts in brain imaging at ultrahigh field. Corrections based on real-time sensing using external field probes show great potential. This study evaluates different aspects of field interpolation from these probes into the brain which is implicit in such methods. Measurements and simulations were performed to quantify how well B0 -fluctuations in the brain due to body and breathing motion are reflected in external field probe measurements. METHODS: Field probe measurements were compared with scanner acquired B0 -maps from experiments with breathing and shoulder movements. A realistic simulation of B0 -fluctuations caused by breathing was performed, and used for testing different sets of field probe positions. RESULTS: The B0 -fluctuations were well reflected in the field probe measurements in the shoulder experiments, while the breathing experiments showed only moderate correspondence. The simulations showed the importance of the probe positions, and that performing full 3(rd) order corrections based on 16 field probes is not recommended. CONCLUSION: Methods for quantitative assessment of the field interpolation problem were developed and demonstrated. Field corrections based on external field measurements show great potential, although potential pitfalls were identified.
PURPOSE: Fluctuations of the background magnetic field (B0 ) due to body and breathing motion can lead to significant artifacts in brain imaging at ultrahigh field. Corrections based on real-time sensing using external field probes show great potential. This study evaluates different aspects of field interpolation from these probes into the brain which is implicit in such methods. Measurements and simulations were performed to quantify how well B0 -fluctuations in the brain due to body and breathing motion are reflected in external field probe measurements. METHODS: Field probe measurements were compared with scanner acquired B0 -maps from experiments with breathing and shoulder movements. A realistic simulation of B0 -fluctuations caused by breathing was performed, and used for testing different sets of field probe positions. RESULTS: The B0 -fluctuations were well reflected in the field probe measurements in the shoulder experiments, while the breathing experiments showed only moderate correspondence. The simulations showed the importance of the probe positions, and that performing full 3(rd) order corrections based on 16 field probes is not recommended. CONCLUSION: Methods for quantitative assessment of the field interpolation problem were developed and demonstrated. Field corrections based on external field measurements show great potential, although potential pitfalls were identified.
Authors: Tess E Wallace; Tobias Kober; Jason P Stockmann; Jonathan R Polimeni; Simon K Warfield; Onur Afacan Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Tess E Wallace; Jonathan R Polimeni; Jason P Stockmann; W Scott Hoge; Tobias Kober; Simon K Warfield; Onur Afacan Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Quincy Q van Houtum; Firdaus F A A Mohamed Hoesein; Joost J J C Verhoeff; Peter P S N van Rossum; Anne A S R van Lindert; Tijl T A van der Velden; Wybe W J M van der Kemp; Dennis D W J Klomp; Catalina C S Arteaga de Castro Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-11-17 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Ovidiu C Andronesi; Pallab K Bhattacharyya; Wolfgang Bogner; In-Young Choi; Aaron T Hess; Phil Lee; Ernesta M Meintjes; M Dylan Tisdall; Maxim Zaitzev; André van der Kouwe Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Cyril J Ferrer; Lambertus W Bartels; Tijl A van der Velden; Holger Grüll; Edwin Heijman; Chrit T W Moonen; Clemens Bos Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-09-22 Impact factor: 4.668