Three dimensional echo-planar imaging at 7 Tesla

By Benedikt A. Poser, Peter J. Koopmans, Thomas Witzel, Lawrence L. Wald, Markus Barth. NeuroImage, 2010

309 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Functional MRI (fMRI) most commonly employs 2D echo-planar imaging (EPI). The advantages for fMRI brought about by the increasingly popular ultra-high field strengths are best exploited in high-resolution acquisitions, but here 2D EPI becomes unpractical for several reasons, including the very long volume acquisitions times. In this study at 7 T, a 3D EPI sequence with full parallel and partial Fourier imaging capability along both phase encoding axes was implemented and used to evaluate the sensitivity of 3D and corresponding 2D EPI acquisitions at four different spatial resolutions ranging from small to typical voxel sizes (1.5–3.0mm isotropic). Whole-brain resting state measurements (N=4) revealed a better, or at least comparable sensitivity of the 3D method for gray and white matter. The larger vulnerability of 3D to physiological effects was outweighed by the much shorter volume TR, which moreover allows whole brain coverage at high resolution within fully acceptable limits for event-related fMRI: TR was only 3.07s for 1.5 mm, 1.88 s for 2.0mm, 1.38 s for 2.5 mm and 1.07s for 3.0 mm isotropic resolution. In order to investigate the ability to detect and spatially resolve BOLD activation in the visual cortex, functional 3D EPI experiments (N=8) were performed at 1mm isotropic resolution with parallel imaging acceleration of 3×3, resulting in a TR of only 3.2s for whole-brain coverage. From our results, and several other practical advantages of 3D over 2D EPI found in the present study, we conclude that 3D EPI provides a useful alternative for whole-brain fMRI at 7 Tesla, not only when high-resolution data are required.

Subfields: Radiation, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ea1d1374ea52d974fd7f756d56955b8fcde3a6fa

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Radiation

  1. Saâd Jbabdi
  2. Essa Yacoub
  3. Kamil Ugurbil
  4. Stephen M. Smith
  5. Timothy Edward John Behrens
  6. Stamatios N. Sotiropoulos
  7. Jesper L. R. Andersson

In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

  1. Stephen M. Smith
  2. Matthew F. Glasser
  3. Jesper L. R. Andersson
  4. Kamil Ugurbil
  5. Essa Yacoub
  6. Stamatios N. Sotiropoulos
  7. Saâd Jbabdi
  8. David C. Van Essen

Citations in the corpus