4.7 Article

Analysis of the robustness and dynamics of spin-locking preparations for the detection of oscillatory magnetic fields

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21232-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) within the project: Predict and Monitor Epilepsy After a First Seizure: The Swiss-First Study (SNSF) [CRSII5-180365]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extracting quantitative information of neuronal signals through non-invasive imaging is crucial for understanding brain function and pathology. This study simulated and analyzed the response of three spin-lock preparations to field inhomogeneities and found that the composite spin-lock preparation is more robust against field variations. They also tested its capability to recover spectral components of a composite signal.
Extracting quantitative information of neuronal signals by non-invasive imaging is an outstanding challenge for understanding brain function and pathology. However, state-of-the-art techniques offer low sensitivity to deep electrical sources. Stimulus induced rotary saturation is a recently proposed magnetic resonance imaging sequence that detects oscillatory magnetic fields using a spin-lock preparation. Phantom experiments and simulations proved its efficiency and sensitivity, but the susceptibility of the method to field inhomogeneities is still not well understood. In this study, we simulated and analyzed the dynamic of three spin-lock preparations and their response to field inhomogeneities in the presence of a resonant oscillating field. We show that the composite spin-lock preparation is more robust against field variations within the double resonance effect. In addition, we tested the capability of the chosen composite spin-lock preparation to recover information about the spectral components of a composite signal. This study sets the bases to move one step further towards the clinical application of MR-based neuronal current imaging.

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