4.7 Article

Evaluation of slice accelerations using multiband echo planar imaging at 3 T

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 991-1001

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.055

关键词

Blipped CAIPI; Leakage (L-) factor; g-Factor Residual aliasing; Spectral analysis; Single-shot fMRI time series

资金

  1. Human Connectome Project [U54MH091657-01]
  2. 16 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Institutes and Centers that support the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience research
  3. National Center for Research Resources [P41 RR008079]
  4. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering [P41 EB015894]
  5. NIH [R44 NS073417, P30 N5057091, P30 NS076408]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluate residual aliasing among simultaneously excited and acquired slices in slice accelerated multiband (MB) echo planar imaging (EPI). No in-plane accelerations were used in order to maximize and evaluate achievable slice acceleration factors at 3 T. We propose a novel leakage (L-) factor to quantify the effects of signal leakage between simultaneously acquired slices. With a standard 32-channel receiver coil at 3 T, we demonstrate that slice acceleration factors of up to eight (MB = 8) with blipped controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (CAIPI), in the absence of in-plane accelerations, can be used routinely with acceptable image quality and integrity for whole brain imaging. Spectral analyses of single-shot fMRI time series demonstrate that temporal fluctuations due to both neuronal and physiological sources were distinguishable and comparable up to sliceacceleration factors of nine (MB = 9). The increased temporal efficiency could be employed to achieve, within a given acquisition period, higher spatial resolution, increased fMRI statistical power, multiple TEs, faster sampling of temporal events in a resting state fMRI time series, increased sampling of q-space in diffusion imaging, or more quiet time during a scan. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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