Brain Mechanical Imaging (BMI)

  • Shadi F. Othman
  • Thomas Boulet
  • Huihui Xu
  • Matthew L. Kelso
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


Multiple brain imaging techniques have been introduced, with structural imaging playing a role in acute disease diagnosis and functional imaging providing valuable information on the recovery mechanisms. However, current diagnostic brain imaging techniques have limitations since the imaging modalities differ in sensitivities to various brain abnormalities, limiting their utility for diagnosis. To better understand the pathology of different brain diseases, there is a need to develop an effective and sensitive imaging marker which is easily translatable to clinical settings. As a non-invasive imaging technique, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is based on synchronizing a mechanical actuator with a phase contrast imaging pulse sequence and measures tissue strain generated by sonic cyclic displacement. In this paper, we applied microscopic MRE (μMRE) as a diagnostic marker for characterizing different central nervous system disease models. While no single brain imaging modality can fully address the pathologies of different diseases, mechanical markers are proven to be effective in detecting different classes of brain diseases. This work aimed at: (1) designing, implementing, and testing an innovative actuation system for future μMRE applications, using a bite bar and rotating nose cone, to overcome the challenge of brain MRE – the brain is entirely encased by the skull, making wave generation and propagation inside complicated and demanding; (2) preliminary studies of using μMRE on different disease models, including multiple sclerosis (MS), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and medulloblastoma tumors.


Brain model imaging MRE Elasticity imaging 



The financial support provided to this study by the University of Nebraska – Lincoln and the University of Nebraska Medical Center under an Engineering for Medicine Research Collaboration Seed Grant is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Levine B, Fujiwara E, O’Connor C, Richard N, Kovacevic N, Mandic M, Restagno A, Easdon C, Robertson IH, Graham SJ, Cheung G, Gao F, Schwartz ML, Black SE (2006) In vivo characterization of traumatic brain injury neuropathology with structural and functional neuroimaging. Neurotrauma 23(10):1396–1411, OctCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fung YC (1981) Biomechanics: mechanical properties of living tissues. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rnjak J, Wise SG, Mithieux SM, Weiss AS (2011) Severe burn injuries and the role of elastin in the design of dermal substitutes. Tissue Eng Part B 17(2):81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muthupillai R, Lomas DJ, Rossman PJ, Greenleaf JF, Manduca A, Ehman RL (1995) Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves. Science 269:1854–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mariappan YK, Glaser KJ, Ehman RL (2010) Magnetic resonance elastography: a review. Clin Anat 23(5):497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shire NJ, Yin M, Chen J, Railkar RA, Fox-Bosetti S, Johnson SM, Beals CR, Dardzinski BJ, Sanderson SO, Talwalkar JA, Ehman RL (2011) Test-retest repeatability of MR elastography for noninvasive liver fibrosis assessment in hepatitis C. J Magn Reson Imaging 34(4):947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Othman SF, Xu H, Royston TJ, Magin RL (2005) Microscopic magnetic resonance elastography (microMRE). Magn Reson Med 54:605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lutton JD, Winston R, Rodman TC (2004) Multiple sclerosis: etiological mechanisms and future directions. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 229(1):12–20, JanGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson DW, Ellenberg JH, Leventhal CM, Reingold SC, Rodriguez M, Silberberg DH (1992) Revised estimate of the prevalence of multiple sclerosis in the United States. Ann Neurol 1931(3):333–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geurts JJ, Barkhof F (2008) Grey matter pathology in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 7(9):841–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faul M, Wald MM, Rutland-Brown W, Sullivent EE, Sattin RW (2007) Using a cost-benefit analysis to estimate outcomes of a clinical treatment guideline: testing the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines for the treatment of severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma 63(6):1271–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levine B, Fujiwara E, O’Connor C, Richard N, Kovacevic N, Mandic M, Restagno A, Easdon C, Robertson IH, Graham SJ, Cheung G, Gao F, Schwartz ML, Black SE (2006) In vivo characterization of traumatic brain injury neuropathology with structural and functional neuroimaging. J Neurotrauma 23(10):1396–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abbott NJ (2002) Astrocyte-endothelial interactions and blood-brain barrier permeability. J Anat 200(6):629–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Romano AJ, Shirron JJ, Bucaro JA (1998) On the noninvasive determination of material parameters from a knowledge of elastic displacements theory and numerical simulation. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 45:751–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oliphant TE, Manduca A, Ehman RL, Greenleaf JF (2001) Complex-valued stiffness reconstruction for magnetic resonance elastography by algebraic inversion of the differential equation. Magn Reson Med 45:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manduca A, Lake DS, Kruse SA, Ehman RL (2003) Spatio-temporal directional filtering for improved inversion of MR elastography images. Med Image Anal 7:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boulet T, Kelso ML, Othman SF (2011) Microscopic magnetic resonance elastography of traumatic brain injury model. J Neurosci Methods 201(2):296–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelso ML, Scheff SW, Pauly JR, Loftin CD (2009) Effects of genetic deficiency of cyclooxygenase-1 or cyclooxygenase-2 on functional and histological outcomes following traumatic brain injury in mice. BMC Neurosci 10:108, 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hatton BA, Villavicencio EH, Tsuchiya KD, Pritchard JI, Ditzler S, Pullar B, Hansen S, Knoblaugh SE, Lee D, Eberhart CG, Hallahan AR, Olson JM (2008) The Smo/Smo model: hedgehog-induced medulloblastoma with 90% incidence and leptomeningeal spread. Cancer Res 68(6):176876, 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shadi F. Othman
    • 1
  • Thomas Boulet
    • 2
  • Huihui Xu
    • 1
  • Matthew L. Kelso
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological Systems EngineeringUniversity of Nebraska – LincolnLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Materials EngineeringUniversity of Nebraska – LincolnLincolnUSA
  3. 3.Department of Pharmacy PracticeUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center, University of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations