4.5 Article

Robust Self-Navigated Body MRI Using Dense Coil Arrays

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
Volume 76, Issue 1, Pages 197-205

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.25858

Keywords

parallel imaging; motion correction; coil arrays; self-navigated MRI; abdominal MRI; cardiac MRI

Funding

  1. NIH [R01 EB009690, R01 EB019241, P41 EB015891]
  2. Tashia and John Morgridge Faculty Scholars Fund, GE Healthcare

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To develop a robust motion estimation method for free-breathing body MRI using dense coil arrays. Methods: Self-navigating pulse sequences can measure subject motion without using external motion monitoring devices. With dense coil arrays, individual coil elements can provide localized motion estimates. An averaged motion estimate over all coils is often used for motion compensation. However, this motion estimate may not accurately represent the dominant motion within the imaging volume. In this work, a coil clustering method is proposed to automatically determine the dominant motion for dense coil arrays. The feasibility of the proposed method is investigated in free-breathing abdominal MRI and cardiac MRI, and compared with manual motion estimate selection for respiratory motion estimation and electro-cardiography for cardiac motion estimation. Results: Automated motion estimation achieved similar respiratory motion estimation compared to manual selection (averaged correlation coefficient 0.989 and 0.988 for abdominal MRI and cardiac MRI, respectively), and accurate cardiac triggering compared to electrocardiography (averaged temporal variability 17.5 ms). Conclusion: The proposed method can provide accurate automated motion estimation for body MRI using dense coil arrays. It can enable self-navigated free-breathing abdominal and cardiac MRI without the need for external motion monitoring devices. (C) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available