Signal, Noise and R. F. Power in Magnetic Resonance Imaging

  • D. I. Hoult
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 107)


The influences on magnetic resonance imaging of probe design, relaxation times, chemical shift and power deposition are considered in the light of the controversy surrounding the notion of an optimal imaging field strength. It is shown that the noise in the experiment originates in the patient, and that in consequence, the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) increases, at the most, linearly with field. The removal of chemical shift artifacts is discussed, and the use of a Carr-Purcell sequence recommended as a way of maintaining signal-to-noise ratio while eliminating artifacts. The concept of desired image S/N is then introduced, and it is shown that there exists a vaguely defined field strength at which that ratio is attained in the minimum time. Finally, the dangers of excessive power deposition in a patient are highlighted, and the use of a field in the range 0.5 to 1 Tesla advocated as giving good signal-to-noise ratio and versatility while not exceeding recommended power limits.


Chemical Shift Larmor Frequency Chemical Shift Image Power Deposition Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Chemical Shift 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. I. Hoult and R. E. Richards, J. Magn. Reson. 24:71 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. I. Hoult, Brit. Med. Bull. 40:132 (1984).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. I. Hoult and P. C. Lauterbur, J. Magn. Reson. 34:425 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. A. Bottomley and E. R. Andrew, Phys. Med. Biol. 23:630 (1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. I. Hoult, C. -N. Chen, and V. J. Sank, submitted to Magn. Res. Med. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. J. H. Ackerman, T. H. Grove, G. G. Wong, D. Gadian, and G. K. Radda, Nature 283:167 (1980).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. C. Lauterbur, Nature 242:190 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. J. Dwyer, R. H. Knop, and D. I. Hoult, J. Comp. Ass. Tomog. 9:16 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. E. Gordon, P. E. Hanley, and D. Shaw, Prog. NMR Spec. 15:1 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. R. Rosen, I. L. Pykett, and T. J. Brady, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Chemical Shift Imaging, in “Biomedical Magnetic Resonance,” T. L. James and A. R. Margulis, eds., Radiology Research Education Foundation, San Francisco (1984).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Mansfield, Magn. Res. Med. 1:370 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. T. Beali, S. R. Amtey, and S. R. Kasturi, “NMR Data Handbook for Biomedical Applications,” Bergamon Press, New York (1984).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. A. Bottomley, T. H. Foster, R. E. Argersinger, and L. M. Pfeifer, General Electric Company Technical Information Series, Report No. 84CRD072, Schenectady, New York (1984).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Office of Radiological Health “Guidelines for Evaluating Electromagnetic Risk for Trials of Clinical NMR Systems,” Communications of February 25th and December 28, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD (1982).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Radiological Protection Board, Brit. J. Radiol. 56:974 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. A. Bottomley, R. W. Redington, W. A. Edelstein, and J. F. Schenck, Magn. Res. Med., In press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. I. Hoult
    • 1
  1. 1.Biomedical Engineering and Instrumentation Branch, Division of Research ServicesNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations