Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In vivo Structural Imaging of the Cerebellum, the Contribution of Ultra-High Fields

  • Published:
The Cerebellum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This review covers some of the contributions to date from cerebellar imaging studies performed at ultra-high magnetic fields. A short overview of the general advantages and drawbacks of the use of such high field systems for imaging is given. One of the biggest advantages of imaging at high magnetic fields is the improved spatial resolution, achievable thanks to the increased available signal-to-noise ratio. This high spatial resolution better matches the dimensions of the cerebellar substructures, allowing a better definition of such structures in the images. The implications of the use of high field systems is discussed for several imaging sequences and image contrast mechanisms. This review covers studies which were performed in vivo in both rodents and humans, with a special focus on studies that were directed towards the observation of the different cerebellar layers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schmahmann JD. Disorders of the cerebellum: ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2004;16(3):367–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schmahmann JD, Caplan D. Cognition, emotion and the cerebellum. Brain. 2006;129(Pt 2):290–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmahmann JD, Weilburg JB, Sherman JC. The neuropsychiatry of the cerebellum—insights from the clinic. Cerebellum (London, England). 2007;6(3):254–67.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Steinlin M. Cerebellar disorders in childhood: cognitive problems. Cerebellum (London, England). 2008;7(4):607–10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Grisoli M, Piperno A, Chiapparini L, Mariani R, Savoiardo M. MR imaging of cerebral cortical involvement in aceruloplasminemia. Ajnr. 2005;26(3):657–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stankiewicz J, Panter SS, Neema M, Arora A, Batt CE, Bakshi R. Iron in chronic brain disorders: imaging and neurotherapeutic implications. Neurotherapeutics. 2007;4(3):371–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel BN, Dunn RJ, Jeong SY, Zhu Q, Julien JP, David S. Ceruloplasmin regulates iron levels in the CNS and prevents free radical injury. J Neurosci. 2002;22(15):6578–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Voogd J. The human cerebellum. J Chem Neuroanat. 2003;26(4):243–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brodmann K. Vergleichende Lokalisationslehre der Grosshirnrinde in ihren Prinzipien dargestellt auf Grund des Zellenbaues. Leipzig: J.A. Barth. 1909

  10. Eccles JC. An instruction–selection theory of learning in the cerebellar cortex. Brain Res. 1977;127(2):327–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Marr D. A theory of cerebellar cortex. J Physiol. 1969;202(2):437–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tyrrell T, Willshaw D. Cerebellar cortex: its simulation and the relevance of Marr's theory. Philos Trans R Soc Lond. 1992;336(1277):239–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Allen GI, Tsukahara N. Cerebrocerebellar communication systems. Physiol Rev. 1974;54(4):957–1006.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hawkes R, Blyth S, Chockkan V, Tano D, Ji Z, Mascher C. Structural and molecular compartmentation in the cerebellum. Can J Neurol Sci. 1993;20 Suppl 3:S29–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dino MR, Mugnaini E. Distribution and phenotypes of unipolar brush cells in relation to the granule cell system of the rat cochlear nucleus. Neuroscience. 2008;154(1):29–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Manto M. The cerebellum, cerebellar disorders, and cerebellar research—two centuries of discoveries. Cerebellum (London, England). 2008;7(4):505–16.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stoodley CJ, Schmahmann JD. Evidence for topographic organization in the cerebellum of motor control versus cognitive and affective processing. 2010 Cortex;46:831–44.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Marques JP, van der Zwaag W, Granziera C, Krueger G, Gruetter R. In vivo visualization of cerebellar cortical layers using structural high field MRI. Radiology. 2010; 254 doi:10.1148/radiol.09091136 (3):942–8.

  19. Mugler JP III, Brookeman JR. Three-dimensional magnetization-prepared rapid gradient-echo imaging (3D MP RAGE). Magn Reson Med. 1990;15(1):152–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmahmann JD, Doyon J, McDonald D, Holmes C, Lavoie K, Hurwitz AS, et al. Three-dimensional MRI atlas of the human cerebellum in proportional stereotaxic space. Neuroimage. 1999;10(3 Pt 1):233–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Diedrichsen J. A spatially unbiased atlas template of the human cerebellum. Neuroimage. 2006;33(1):127–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Diedrichsen J, Balsters JH, Flavell J, Cussans E, Ramnani N. A probabilistic MR atlas of the human cerebellum. Neuroimage. 2009;46(1):39–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Burk K, Globas C, Wahl T, Buhring U, Dietz K, Zuhlke C, et al. MRI-based volumetric differentiation of sporadic cerebellar ataxia. Brain. 2004;127(Pt 1):175–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. De Marcos FA, Ghizoni E, Kobayashi E, Li LM, Cendes F. Cerebellar volume and long-term use of phenytoin. Seizure. 2003;12(5):312–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hagemann G, Lemieux L, Free SL, Krakow K, Everitt AD, Kendall BE, et al. Cerebellar volumes in newly diagnosed and chronic epilepsy. J Neurol. 2002;249(12):1651–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Joyal CC, Pennanen C, Tiihonen E, Laakso MP, Tiihonen J, Aronen HJ. MRI volumetry of the vermis and the cerebellar hemispheres in men with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2004;131(2):115–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schulz JB, Borkert J, Wolf S, Schmitz-Hubsch T, Rakowicz M, Mariotti C, et al. Visualization, quantification and correlation of brain atrophy with clinical symptoms in spinocerebellar ataxia types 1, 3 and 6. Neuroimage. 2010; 49(1):158–68.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Szabo CA, Lancaster JL, Lee S, Xiong JH, Cook C, Mayes BN, et al. MR imaging volumetry of subcortical structures and cerebellar hemispheres in temporal lobe epilepsy. Ajnr. 2006;27(10):2155–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ramnani N, Behrens TE, Johansen-Berg H, Richter MC, Pinsk MA, Andersson JL, et al. The evolution of prefrontal inputs to the cortico-pontine system: diffusion imaging evidence from Macaque monkeys and humans. Cereb Cortex. 2006;16(6):811–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Granziera C, Schmahmann JD, Hadjikhani N, Meyer H, Meuli R, Wedeen V, et al. Diffusion spectrum imaging shows the structural basis of functional cerebellar circuits in the human cerebellum in vivo. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(4):e5101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Haacke M, Brown R, Thompson M, Venkatesan R, Haacke M, Brown R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging: physical principles and sequence design: Wiley-Liss 1999.

  32. Mekle R, Mlynarik V, Gambarota G, Hergt M, Krueger G, Gruetter R. MR spectroscopy of the human brain with enhanced signal intensity at ultrashort echo times on a clinical platform at 3 T and 7 T. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61(6):1279–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Duyn JH, Van Gelderen P, Li TQ, De Zwart JA, Koretsky AP, Fukunaga M. High-field MRI of brain cortical substructure based on signal phase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104(28):11796–801.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Thomas BP, Welch EB, Niederhauser BD, Whetsell WO Jr, Anderson AW, Gore JC, et al. High-resolution 7 T MRI of the human hippocampus in vivo. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(5):1266–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. van der Zwaag W, Marques JP, Hergt M, Gruetter R. Investigation of high-resolution functional magnetic resonance imaging by means of surface and array radiofrequency coils at 7 T. Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;27:1011–8.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Yacoub E, Harel N, Ugurbil K. High-field fMRI unveils orientation columns in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(30):10607–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Yacoub E, Shmuel A, Logothetis N, Ugurbil K. Robust detection of ocular dominance columns in humans using Hahn Spin Echo BOLD functional MRI at 7 Tesla. Neuroimage. 2007;37(4):1161–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. van der Zwaag W, Francis S, Head K, Peters A, Gowland P, Morris P, et al. fMRI at 1.5, 3 and 7 T: characterising BOLD signal changes. Neuroimage. 2009;47(4):1425–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vaughan JT, Garwood M, Collins CM, Liu W, DelaBarre L, Adriany G, et al. 7 T vs. 4 T: RF power, homogeneity, and signal-to-noise comparison in head images. Magn Reson Med. 2001;46(1):24–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. IEC. Medical electrical equipment—part 2–33: particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. 2008.

  41. Hennig J, Weigel M, Scheffler K. Multiecho sequences with variable refocusing flip angles: optimization of signal behavior using smooth transitions between pseudo steady states (TRAPS). Magn Reson Med. 2003;49(3):527–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Weigel M, Hennig J. Contrast behavior and relaxation effects of conventional and hyperecho-turbo spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55(4):826–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Haacke EM, Xu Y, Cheng YCN, Reichenbach JR. Susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI). Magn Reson Med. 2004;52(3):612–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Li TQ, van Gelderen P, Merkle H, Talagala L, Koretsky AP, Duyn J. Extensive heterogeneity in white matter intensity in high-resolution T2*-weighted MRI of the human brain at 7.0 T. Neuroimage. 2006;32(3):1032–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rauscher A, Sedlacik J, Barth M, Mentzel HJ, Reichenbach JR. Magnetic susceptibility-weighted MR phase imaging of the human brain. Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(4):736–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Noll DC, Nishimura DG, Macovski A. Homodyne detection in magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1991;10(2):154–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Cheng YC, Neelavalli J, Haacke EM. Limitations of calculating field distributions and magnetic susceptibilities in MRI using a Fourier-based method. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(5):1169–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hammond KE, Metcalf M, Carvajal L, Okuda DT, Srinivasan R, Vigneron D, et al. Quantitative in vivo magnetic resonance imaging of multiple sclerosis at 7 Tesla with sensitivity to iron. Ann Neurol. 2008;64(6):707–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mainero C, Benner T, Radding A, van der Kouwe A, Jensen R, Rosen BR, et al. In vivo imaging of cortical pathology in multiple sclerosis using ultra-high field MRI. Neurology. 2009;73(12):941–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Benveniste H, Blackband S. MR microscopy and high resolution small animal MRI: applications in neuroscience research. Prog Neurobiol. 2002;67(5):393–420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Aoki I, Wu YJL, Silva AC, Lynch RM, Koretsky AP. In vivo detection of neuroarchitecture in the rodent brain using manganese-enhanced MRI. Neuroimage. 2004;22(3):1046–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Serôdio P, Rudy B. Differential expression of Kv4 K + channel subunits mediating subthreshold transient K + (A-type) currents in rat brain. J Neurophysiol. 1998;79(2):1081–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Strassle BW, Menegola M, Rhodes KJ, Trimmer JS. Light and electron microscopic analysis of KChIP and Kv4 localization in rat cerebellar granule cells. J Comp Neurol. 2005;484(2):144–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Boretius S, Kasper L, Tammer R, Michaelis T, Frahm J. MRI of cellular layers in mouse brain in vivo. Neuroimage. 2009;47(4):1252–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Marques JP, Maddage R, Mlynarik V, Gruetter R. On the origin of the MR image phase contrast: an in vivo MR microscopy study of the rat brain at 14.1 T. Neuroimage. 2009;46(2):345–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Moenninghoff C, Kraff O, Schlamann M, Ladd ME, Katsarava Z, Gizewski ER. Assessing a dysplastic cerebellar gangliocytoma (Lhermitte-Duclos disease) with 7T MR imaging. Korean J Radiol. Mar;11(2):244–8.

  57. Marques JP, Kober T, Krueger G, van der Zwaag W, Van de Moortele PF, Gruetter R. MP2RAGE, a self bias-field corrected sequence for improved segmentation and T-1-mapping at high field. Neuroimage. 2010;49(2):1271–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Van de Moortele PF, Auerbach EJ, Olman C, Yacoub E, Ugurbil K, Moeller S. T(1) weighted brain images at 7 Tesla unbiased for Proton Density, T(2) contrast and RF coil receive B(1) sensitivity with simultaneous vessel visualization. Neuroimage. 2009;46:432–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ibrahim TS, Lee R, Baertlein BA, Abduljalil AM, Zhu H, Robitaille PM. Effect of RF coil excitation on field inhomogeneity at ultra high fields: a field optimized TEM resonator. Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;19(10):1339–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Hoult DI, Phil D. Sensitivity and power deposition in a high-field imaging experiment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(1):46–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Hsu JJ, Glover GH. Mitigation of susceptibility-induced signal loss in neuroimaging using localized shim coils. Magn Reson Med. 2005;53(2):243–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Katscher U, Bornert P, Leussler C, van den Brink JS. Transmit SENSE. Magn Reson Med. 2003;49(1):144–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med. 1999;42(5):952–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Prof. Ichio Aoki and Dr. Sussan Boretivs for generously providing the originals of their published figures. This work was supported by the Centre d'Imagerie BioMédicale (CIBM) of the UNIL, UNIGE, HUG, CHUV, EPFL, and the Leenaards and Jeantet Foundations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory for Functional and Metabolic Imaging, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Station 6, CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    José P. Marques, Rolf Gruetter & Wietske van der Zwaag

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    José P. Marques, Rolf Gruetter & Wietske van der Zwaag

Authors
  1. José P. Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rolf Gruetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wietske van der Zwaag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José P. Marques.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marques, J.P., Gruetter, R. & van der Zwaag, W. In vivo Structural Imaging of the Cerebellum, the Contribution of Ultra-High Fields. Cerebellum 11, 384–391 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-010-0189-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-010-0189-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation