Bei Zhang1,2,3, Gregor Adriany4, Lance Delabarre4, Jerahmie Radder4, Russell Lagore4, Brian Rutt5, Qing X Yang6, Kamil Ugurbil4, Riccardo Lattanzi1,2. 1. Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R), New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 2. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 3. Advanced Imaging Research Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. 4. Center for Magnetic Resonance Research (CMRR), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this work, we investigated how the position of the radiofrequency (RF) shield can affect the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a receive RF coil. Our aim was to obtain physical insight for the design of a 10.5T 32-channel head coil, subject to the constraints on the diameter of the RF shield imposed by the head gradient coil geometry. METHOD: We used full-wave numerical simulations to investigate how the SNR of an RF receive coil depends on the diameter of the RF shield at ultra-high magnetic field (UHF) strengths (≥7T). RESULTS: Our simulations showed that there is an SNR-optimal RF shield size at UHF strength, whereas at low field the SNR monotonically increases with the shield diameter. For a 32-channel head coil at 10.5T, an optimally sized RF shield could act as a cylindrical waveguide and increase the SNR in the brain by 27% compared to moving the shield as far as possible from the coil. Our results also showed that a separate transmit array between the RF shield and the receive array could considerably reduce SNR even if they are decoupled. CONCLUSION: At sufficiently high magnetic field strength, the design of local RF coils should be optimized together with the design of the RF shield to benefit from both near field and resonant modes.
PURPOSE: In this work, we investigated how the position of the radiofrequency (RF) shield can affect the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of a receive RF coil. Our aim was to obtain physical insight for the design of a 10.5T 32-channel head coil, subject to the constraints on the diameter of the RF shield imposed by the head gradient coil geometry. METHOD: We used full-wave numerical simulations to investigate how the SNR of an RF receive coil depends on the diameter of the RF shield at ultra-high magnetic field (UHF) strengths (≥7T). RESULTS: Our simulations showed that there is an SNR-optimal RF shield size at UHF strength, whereas at low field the SNR monotonically increases with the shield diameter. For a 32-channel head coil at 10.5T, an optimally sized RF shield could act as a cylindrical waveguide and increase the SNR in the brain by 27% compared to moving the shield as far as possible from the coil. Our results also showed that a separate transmit array between the RF shield and the receive array could considerably reduce SNR even if they are decoupled. CONCLUSION: At sufficiently high magnetic field strength, the design of local RF coils should be optimized together with the design of the RF shield to benefit from both near field and resonant modes.
Authors: A J E Raaijmakers; O Ipek; D W J Klomp; C Possanzini; P R Harvey; J J W Lagendijk; C A T van den Berg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Stefan H G Rietsch; Stephan Orzada; Stefan Maderwald; Sascha Brunheim; Bart W J Philips; Tom W J Scheenen; Mark E Ladd; Harald H Quick Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Bei Zhang; Daniel K Sodickson; Riccardo Lattanzi; Qi Duan; Bernd Stoeckel; Graham C Wiggins Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-08-12 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: Riccardo Lattanzi; Aaron K Grant; Jonathan R Polimeni; Michael A Ohliger; Graham C Wiggins; Lawrence L Wald; Daniel K Sodickson Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Caroline Le Ster; Andrea Grant; Pierre-François Van de Moortele; Alejandro Monreal-Madrigal; Gregor Adriany; Alexandre Vignaud; Franck Mauconduit; Cécile Rabrait-Lerman; Benedikt A Poser; Kâmil Uğurbil; Nicolas Boulant Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 3.737