4.5 Article

Multilattice sampling strategies for region of interest dynamic MRI

期刊

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE
卷 70, 期 2, 页码 392-403

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mrm.24471

关键词

dynamic MRI; lattice sampling; compressed sensing; multilattice; sparsity; sampling pattern design; carotid bloodvelocity mapping

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/F039697/1]
  2. SMALL Project for the European Commission, FET-Open [225913]
  3. Scottish Funding Council
  4. Chief Scientist Office (SINAPSE)
  5. NHS Lothian RD
  6. WTCRF
  7. EPSRC [EP/F039697/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F039697/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A multilattice sampling approach is proposed for dynamic MRI with Cartesian trajectories. It relies on the use of sampling patterns composed of several different lattices and exploits an image model where only some parts of the image are dynamic, whereas the rest is assumed static. Given the parameters of such an image model, the methodology followed for the design of a multilattice sampling pattern adapted to the model is described. The multi-lattice approach is compared to single-lattice sampling, as used by traditional acceleration methods such as UNFOLD (UNaliasing by Fourier-Encoding the Overlaps using the temporal Dimension) or k-t BLAST, and random sampling used by modern compressed sensing-based methods. On the considered image model, it allows more flexibility and higher accelerations than lattice sampling and better performance than random sampling. The method is illustrated on a phase-contrast carotid blood velocity mapping MR experiment. Combining the multilattice approach with the KEYHOLE technique allows up to 12x acceleration factors. Simulation and in vivo undersampling results validate the method. Compared to lattice and random sampling, multilattice sampling provides significant gains at high acceleration factors. Magn Reson Med 70:392-403, 2013. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据