Signal-to-noise ratio versus field strength for small surface coils.
field strength
signal‐to‐noise ratio
small animal imaging
surface coils
ultrahigh field
Journal
NMR in biomedicine
ISSN: 1099-1492
Titre abrégé: NMR Biomed
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8915233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 May 2024
08 May 2024
Historique:
revised:
20
03
2024
received:
19
12
2023
accepted:
02
04
2024
medline:
8
5
2024
pubmed:
8
5
2024
entrez:
8
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The increasing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is the main reason to use ultrahigh field MRI. Here, we investigate the dependence of the SNR on the magnetic field strength, especially for small animal applications, where small surface coils are used and coil noise cannot be ignored. Measurements were performed at five field strengths from 3 to 14.1 T, using 2.2-cm surface coils with an identical coil design for transmit and receive on two water samples with and without salt. SNR was measured in a series of spoiled gradient echo images with varying flip angle and corrected for saturation based on a series of flip angle and T
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e5168Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 834940
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. NMR in Biomedicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Edelstein WA, Glover GH, Hardy CJ, Redington RW. The intrinsic signal‐to‐noise ratio in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1986;3(4):604‐618. doi:10.1002/mrm.1910030413
Kopanoglu E, Erturk VB, Atalar E. Analytic expressions for the ultimate intrinsic signal‐to‐noise ratio and ultimate intrinsic specific absorption rate in MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2011;66(3):846‐858. doi:10.1002/mrm.22830
De Graaf RA, Hendriks AD, Klomp DWJ, et al. On the magnetic field dependence of deuterium metabolic imaging. NMR Biomed. 2020;33(3):e4235. doi:10.1002/nbm.4235
Zhu X‐H, Merkle H, Kwag J‐H, Ugurbil K, Chen W. 17O relaxation time and NMR sensitivity of cerebral water and their field dependence. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45(4):543‐549. doi:10.1002/mrm.1073
Keltner JR, Carlson JW, Roos MS, Wong STS, Wong TL, Budinger TF. Electromagnetic fields of surface coil in vivo NMR at high frequencies. Magn Reson Med. 1991;22(2):467‐480. doi:10.1002/mrm.1910220254
Wiesinger F, Boesiger P, Pruessmann KP. Electrodynamics and ultimate SNR in parallel MR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52(2):376‐390. doi:10.1002/mrm.20183
Guérin B, Villena JF, Polimeridis AG, et al. The ultimate signal‐to‐noise ratio in realistic body models. Magn Reson Med. 2017;78(5):1969‐1980. doi:10.1002/mrm.26564
Le Ster C, Grant A, Van de Moortele PF, et al. Magnetic field strength dependent SNR gain at the center of a spherical phantom and up to 11.7T. Magn Reson Med. 2022;88(5):2131‐2138. doi:10.1002/mrm.29391
Pohmann R, Speck O, Scheffler K. Signal‐to‐noise ratio and MR tissue parameters in human brain imaging at 3, 7, and 9.4 Tesla using current receive coil arrays. Magn Reson Med. 2016;75(2):801‐809. doi:10.1002/mrm.25677
Hoult DI, Richards RE. The signal‐to‐noise ratio of the nuclear magnetic resonance experiment. J Magn Reson. 1976;24(1):71‐85. doi:10.1016/0022‐2364(76)90233‐X
Hoult DI. The principle of reciprocity in signal strength calculations—a mathematical guide. Concepts Magn Reson. 2000;12(4):173‐187. doi:10.1002/1099‐0534(2000)12:4<173::AID‐CMR1>3.0.CO;2‐Q
Ernst RR, Anderson WA. Application of Fourier transform spectroscopy to magnetic resonance. Rev Sci Instrum. 1966;37(1):93‐102. doi:10.1063/1.1719961
Yarnykh VL. Actual flip‐angle imaging in the pulsed steady state: a method for rapid three‐dimensional mapping of the transmitted radiofrequency field. Magn Reson Med. 2007;57(1):192‐200. doi:10.1002/mrm.21120
Yarnykh VL. Optimal radiofrequency and gradient spoiling for improved accuracy of T1 and B1 measurements using fast steady‐state techniques. Magn Reson Med. 2010;63(6):1610‐1626. doi:10.1002/mrm.22394
Pohmann R, Scheffler K. A theoretical and experimental comparison of different techniques for B1 mapping at very high fields. NMR Biomed. 2013;26(3):265‐275. doi:10.1002/nbm.2844
Noise figure measurement accuracy—the Y‐factor method. Application Note 57‐2. Agilent Technologies; 2014.
Hasgall P, Gennaro FD, Baumgartner C, et al. Data from: IT'IS Database for Thermal and Electromagnetic Parameters of Biological Tissues 2022;4.1. 10.13099/VIP21000‐04‐1
Kumar A, Edelstein WA, Bottomley PA. Noise figure limits for circular loop MR coils. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61(5):1201‐1209. doi:10.1002/mrm.21948
Edelstein WA. Principles and modeling of radiofrequency coil signal detection and image production. In Proceedings of the Weekend Educational Program on RF Systems Engineering, 14th Annual Meeting of the ISMRM, Seattle, USA; 2006.
Hoult DI, Phil D. Sensitivity and power deposition in a high‐field imaging experiment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(1):46‐67. doi:10.1002/1522‐2586(200007)12:1<46::aid‐jmri6>3.0.co;2‐d
Ocali O, Atalar E. Ultimate intrinsic signal‐to‐noise ratio in MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1998;39(3):462‐473. doi:10.1002/mrm.1910390317
Lattanzi R, Sodickson DK. Ideal current patterns yielding optimal signal‐to‐noise ratio and specific absorption rate in magnetic resonance imaging: computational methods and physical insights. Magn Reson Med. 2012;68(1):286‐304. doi:10.1002/mrm.23198
Lee HH, Sodickson DK, Lattanzi R. An analytic expression for the ultimate intrinsic SNR in a uniform sphere. Magn Reson Med. 2018;80(5):2256‐2266. doi:10.1002/mrm.27207
Vaidya MV, Collins CM, Sodickson DK, Brown R, Wiggins GC, Lattanzi R. Dependence of and field patterns of surface coils on the electrical properties of the sample and the MR operating frequency. Concepts Magn Reson Part B Magn Reson Eng. 2016;46(1):25‐40. doi:10.1002/cmr.b.21319
Vaughan JT, Garwood M, Collins CM, et al. 7T vs. 4T: RF power, homogeneity, and signal‐to‐noise comparison in head images. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46(1):24‐30. doi:10.1002/mrm.1156 [pii]
Triantafyllou C, Hoge RD, Krueger G, et al. Comparison of physiological noise at 1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T and optimization of fMRI acquisition parameters. Neuroimage. 2005;26(1):243‐250. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.007