Riccardo Lattanzi1,2,3, Graham C Wiggins1, Bei Zhang1, Qi Duan4, Ryan Brown1,3, Daniel K Sodickson1,2,3. 1. Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research and Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. The Sackler Institute of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 3. NYU WIRELESS, New York University Tandon School of Engineering, Brooklyn, New York, USA. 4. Laboratory of Functional and Molecular Imaging, NINDS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous work with body-size objects suggested that loops are optimal MR detectors at low fields, whereas electric dipoles are required to maximize signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at ultrahigh fields ( ≥ 7 T). Here we investigated how many loops and/or dipoles are needed to approach the ultimate intrinsic SNR (UISNR) at various field strengths. METHODS: We calculated the UISNR inside dielectric cylinders mimicking different anatomical regions. We assessed the performance of various arrays with respect to the UISNR. We validated our results by comparing simulated and experimental coil performance maps. RESULTS: Arrays with an increasing number of loops can rapidly approach the UISNR at fields up to 3 T, but are suboptimal at ultrahigh fields for body-size objects. The opposite is true for dipole arrays. At 7 T and above, 16 dipoles provide considerably larger central SNR than any possible loop array, and minimal g factor penalty for parallel imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Electric dipoles can be advantageous at ultrahigh fields because they can produce both curl-free and divergence-free currents, whereas loops are limited to divergence-free contributions only. Combining loops and dipoles may be optimal for body imaging at 3 T, whereas arrays of loops or dipoles alone may perform better at lower or higher field strengths, respectively. Magn Reson Med 79:1789-1803, 2018.
PURPOSE: Previous work with body-size objects suggested that loops are optimal MR detectors at low fields, whereas electric dipoles are required to maximize signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at ultrahigh fields ( ≥ 7 T). Here we investigated how many loops and/or dipoles are needed to approach the ultimate intrinsic SNR (UISNR) at various field strengths. METHODS: We calculated the UISNR inside dielectric cylinders mimicking different anatomical regions. We assessed the performance of various arrays with respect to the UISNR. We validated our results by comparing simulated and experimental coil performance maps. RESULTS: Arrays with an increasing number of loops can rapidly approach the UISNR at fields up to 3 T, but are suboptimal at ultrahigh fields for body-size objects. The opposite is true for dipole arrays. At 7 T and above, 16 dipoles provide considerably larger central SNR than any possible loop array, and minimal g factor penalty for parallel imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Electric dipoles can be advantageous at ultrahigh fields because they can produce both curl-free and divergence-free currents, whereas loops are limited to divergence-free contributions only. Combining loops and dipoles may be optimal for body imaging at 3 T, whereas arrays of loops or dipoles alone may perform better at lower or higher field strengths, respectively. Magn Reson Med 79:1789-1803, 2018.
Authors: Gregor Adriany; Pierre-Francois Van de Moortele; Florian Wiesinger; Steen Moeller; John P Strupp; Peter Andersen; Carl Snyder; Xiaoliang Zhang; Wei Chen; Klaas P Pruessmann; Peter Boesiger; Tommy Vaughan; Kāmil Uğurbil Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Andreas Christ; Wolfgang Kainz; Eckhart G Hahn; Katharina Honegger; Marcel Zefferer; Esra Neufeld; Wolfgang Rascher; Rolf Janka; Werner Bautz; Ji Chen; Berthold Kiefer; Peter Schmitt; Hans-Peter Hollenbach; Jianxiang Shen; Michael Oberle; Dominik Szczerba; Anthony Kam; Joshua W Guag; Niels Kuster Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: M Arcan Ertürk; Alexander J E Raaijmakers; Gregor Adriany; Kâmil Uğurbil; Gregory J Metzger Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Carel C van Leeuwen; Bart R Steensma; Dennis W J Klomp; Cornelis A T van den Berg; Alexander J E Raaijmakers Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 3.737
Authors: Manushka V Vaidya; Cem M Deniz; Christopher M Collins; Daniel K Sodickson; Riccardo Lattanzi Journal: MAGMA Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Karthik Lakshmanan; Martijn Cloos; Ryan Brown; Riccardo Lattanzi; Daniel K Sodickson; Graham C Wiggins Journal: Concepts Magn Reson Part B Magn Reson Eng Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 1.176