Advertisement

Simulation Techniques for Evaluating Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Chapter
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is unique in its ability to reflect contrast on the basis of several different mechanisms. The signal is related to the hydrogen density, N(H), and the rates of relaxation, T1 and T2. Each of these factors can be exploited individually to provide contrast. The direct dependence of signal on the number of spins present, i.e., the hydrogen density, is obvious. The relationships involving T1 and T2 are less intuitive and in some sense reflect competing behaviors. T1 involves a regrowth of magnetization; T2 represents a decay.

Keywords

White Matter Inversion Recovery Cerebral Spinal Fluid Hydrogen Density Polarity Information 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Goodenough DJ: Assessment of Image Quality of Diagnostic Imaging System, Medical Images: Formation, Perception and Measurement, Chap. 4, Wiley, Chichester, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufman L, Shosa DW: Generalized Methodology for the Comparison of Diagnostic Imaging Instrumentation. AFIPS Press, Vol. 49, 445–451, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shosa DW, Kaufman L: Methods for Evaluation of Diagnostic Imaging Instrumentation, Phys Med Biol, Vol. 26, No. 1, 101–112, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rose AA: Vision : Human and Electronic, Plenum Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edelstein WA, Bottomley PA, et al: Signal Noise and Contrast in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Imaging, J Computer Assisted Tomography, Vol, 7, 391–401, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feinberg DA, Mills CM, et al: Multiple Spin-Echo Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Radiology. Vol. 155, 437–442, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Posin JP, Ortendahl DA, Hylton NM, et al: Variable Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters: Effect on Detection and Characterization of Lesions, Radiology. Vol. 155, 719–725, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ortendahl DA, Hylton NM, Kaufman L, Crooks LE: Optimal Strategies for Obtaining the Minimal NMR Data Set. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 1985. (In Press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoult DI, Richards RE: The Signal—to—Noise Ratio of the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Experiment, J of Magnetic Resonance. Vol. 24, 71–85, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hart HR, Bottomley PA, et al: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Contrast—to—Noise Ratio as a Function of Strength of Magnetic Field, AJR, Vol. 141, 1195–1201, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaufman L, Crooks LE: Technical Advances in Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Presented at the Annual Postgraduate Course in MRI, CT and Interventional Radiology, 1985Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bottomley PA, Foster TH, et al: A Review of Normal Tissue Hydrogen NMR Relaxation Times and Relaxation Mechanisms from 1–100 MHz: Dependence on Tissue Type, NMR Frequency, Temperature, Species, Excision, and Age, Med Phys, Vol. 11, No. 4, 425–448, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bakker CJG, de Graaf CN, van Dijk P: Restoration of Signal Polarity in a Set of Inversion Recovery Images, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. (In Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiologic Imaging LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaSouth San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations