Neuroimaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T:: Comparison of oxygenation-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging

被引:262
|
作者
Krüger, G [1 ]
Kastrup, A [1 ]
Glover, GH [1 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Dept Radiol, Lucas MRS Ctr, Palo Alto, CA 94305 USA
关键词
neuroimaging; spiral scan; magnetic field strength; CNR; SNR; physiological noise;
D O I
10.1002/mrm.1081
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Noise properties, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and signal responses were compared during functional activation of the human brain at 1.5 and 3.0 T. At the higher field spiral gradient-echo (GRE) brain images revealed an average gain in SNR of 1.7 in fully relaxed and 2.2 in images with a repetition time (TR) of 1.5 sec. The tempered gain at longer Tps reflects the fact that the physiological noise depends on the signal strength acid becomes a larger fraction of the total noise at 3.0 T, Activation of the primary motor and visual cortex resulted in a 36% and 44% increase of "activated pixels" at 3.0 T, which reflects a greater sensitivity for the detection of activated gray matter at the higher field, The gain in the CNR exhibited a dependency on the underlying tissue, i.e., an Increase of 1.8x in regions of particular high activation-induced signal changes (presumably venous vessels) and of 2.2x in the average activated areas. These results demonstrate that 3.0 T provides a clear advantage over 1.5 T for neuroimaging of homogeneous brain tissue, although stronger physiological noise contributions, more complicated signal features in the proximity of strong susceptibility gradients, and changes In the intrinsic relaxation times may mediate the enhancement. Magn Reson Med 45:595-604, 2001, (C) 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:595 / 604
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Physiological noise in oxygenation-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging
    Krüger, G
    Glover, GH
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2001, 46 (04) : 631 - 637
  • [2] Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0 T: A prospective comparison study of image quality
    Ullrich, T.
    Quentin, M.
    Oelers, C.
    Dietzel, F.
    Sawicki, L. M.
    Arsov, C.
    Rabenalt, R.
    Albers, P.
    Antoch, G.
    Blondin, D.
    Wittsack, H. J.
    Schimmoeller, L.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2017, 90 : 192 - 197
  • [3] Intraindividual comparison of MR-renal perfusion imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T
    Michaely, Henrik J.
    Kramer, Harald
    Oesingmann, Niels
    Lodemann, Klaus-Peter
    Miserock, Karl
    Reiser, Maximilian F.
    Schoenberg, Stefan O.
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2007, 42 (06) : 406 - 411
  • [4] 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging in children with brachial plexus birth injury
    Shinong Pan 1
    NeuralRegenerationResearch, 2011, 6 (06) : 474 - 480
  • [5] 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging in children with brachial plexus birth injury
    Pan, Shinong
    Tian, Lijie
    Liao, Wei
    Tian, Feng
    Mao, Jian
    Wang, Fei
    Bai, Rongjie
    Li, Qi
    Chen, Zhian
    Guo, Qiyong
    NEURAL REGENERATION RESEARCH, 2011, 6 (06) : 474 - 480
  • [6] Influence of the Magnetic Field Strength on Image Contrast in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR Imaging: Comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T
    Hata, Hirofumi
    Inoue, Yusuke
    Nakajima, Ai
    Komi, Shotaro
    Miyatake, Hiroki
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2017, 16 (02) : 109 - 114
  • [7] Comparison of physiological noise at 1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T and optimization of fMRI acquisition parameters
    Triantafyllou, C
    Hoge, RD
    Krueger, G
    Wiggins, CJ
    Potthast, A
    Wiggins, GC
    Wald, LL
    NEUROIMAGE, 2005, 26 (01) : 243 - 250
  • [8] Comparisons of turbo spin-echo and echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging of the female pelvic region on 1.5T and 3.0T magnetic resonance systems
    Araki, Hisatoshi
    Yoshizako, Takeshi
    Yoshida, Rika
    Asou, Hiroya
    Kaji, Yasushi
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA OPEN, 2025, 14 (05)
  • [9] Quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifacts caused by neurosurgical biomaterials: Comparison of 0.5, 1.5. and 3.0 Tesla magnetic fields
    Matsuura, H
    Inoue, T
    Ogasawara, K
    Sasaki, M
    Konno, H
    Kuzu, Y
    Nishimoto, H
    Ogawa, A
    NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA, 2005, 45 (08) : 395 - 398
  • [10] Assessment of the available evidence for the use of 7-Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in neurological and musculoskeletal disorders, with comparison to 3-T and 1.5-T MRI: A systematic scoping review
    Radojewski, Piotr
    Piredda, Gian Franco
    Bonanno, Gabriele
    Lovblad, Karl-Olof
    Vargas, Maria Isabel
    Sutter, Reto
    Nanz, Daniel
    Karrer, Tanya
    Salanti, Georgia
    Wiest, Roland
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, 2025, 32 (01)