Marta Lancione1,2, Guido Buonincontri2,3, Luca Cecchetti1, Mauro Costagli2,3, Jan W Kurzawski2,4, Emiliano Ricciardi1, Rolf F Schulte5, Ana Beatriz Solana Sanchez5, and Michela Tosetti2,3
1IMT School for Advanced Studies, Lucca, Italy, 2IMAGO7 Foundation, Pisa, Italy, 3IRCCS Stella Maris, Pisa, Italy, 4Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Pisa, Italy, 5GE Healthcare, Munich, Germany
Synopsis
Besides being a major cause of patient
discomfort, acoustic scanner noise (ASN) represents one of the main confounding
factors in fMRI with auditory stimulation and in resting state conditions. The
recent development of silent T2*-weighted MR sequences may open up new
possibilities in the study of brain function in a quieter environment offering
novel tools of acquisition, alternative to EPI. In this feasibility study we
aim to produce and evaluate BOLD activity maps at 7T using a novel 3D radial
T2* sequence (ZTE-BURST).
Introduction
The
detrimental effect of acoustic scanner noise (ASN)1 has been reported in several
experimental conditions, such as fMRI experiments that involve auditory
stimulation2,3, resting state scans4 and sleep studies5.
Some of the challenges related to ASN include stimulus masking, undesired
additional cognitive effort for the subject and interference during stimulus
processing, which can contaminate the results.
To
overcome this limitation, we adopted a novel 3D radial sequence with
T2*-contrast capability (ZTE-BURST), which has been shown to exhibit minimal
ASN in structural MRI acquisition (76 dBA)6. The
sequence parameters have been tailored for fMRI experiments, and we used
auditory and visual stimulation to assess whether ZTE-BURST is
a suitable technique to enable BOLD-fMRI experiments in a silent environment.Methods
ZTE-BURST6 starts with a block of standard ZTE7 encoding multiple 3D radial k-space
spokes followed by blocks with reversed direction and no RF excitation. The
gradient trajectories of the first block are then repeated without RF
excitation to collect the echo signal (Figure 1).
Two healthy
subjects with normal sight and hearing (a 30 years-old male for the visual
experiment and a 36 years-old female for the auditory experiment) underwent an
MRI session on a whole-body 7T MRI scanner (MR950, GE Healthcare) including a
T1-weighted anatomical sequence and a train of 20 ZTE-BURST scans, each
acquiring a volume with full-head coverage in 28s, with isotropic voxel size of
3mm, FA=3° and TE=0,11.1,22.2ms.
fMRI analysis was performed on the third TE. Acquisitions during both visual and
auditory stimulations were tested.
Visual stimulation was conveyed via
MR-compatible goggle set and consisted of black and white checkerboard patterns
on a grey background, positioned either along the horizontal or vertical
meridian. The two meridians appeared alternately for 14s each, in a
pseudo-random order so that the vertical meridian was presented during the
first half of the k-space sampling in half of the volumes and in the second half
in the other volumes, and viceversa for the horizontal ones (Figure 2). Auditory
stimulation followed a similar paradigm: the two alternating stimuli were jittered
pure tones (75ms each) sampled
from either a low-frequency band (125-355Hz) or a high-frequency band (2000-5680Hz),
alternating in 14s blocks.
Both for
the auditory and visual stimulation experiment, two halves of the raw data of
two volumes acquired with different stimulus order were reconstructed
separately, obtaining undersampled images. These images were motion-corrected
by applying the transformation matrix computed on the fully-sampled images and
finally recombined via a complex sum in a single fully-sampled image with
consistent stimulation (Figure 2). Contrast maps (i.e., Vertical-Horizontal
meridian and Low-High frequencies) were obtained by computing a voxelwise paired
t-test between the two groups of images (10 volumes per stimulus condition) and
transformed into the MNI152 space.
The same
visual and acoustic stimulation paradigms, organized in alternating blocks of
14s, were delivered also during a conventional EPI acquisition (TR=2s, TE=22.2ms,
voxel size=2mm iso, 147 volumes). These datasets underwent standard
preprocessing and GLM analysis in AFNI8. Statistical maps for the auditory
and visual contrasts of interest were obtained and transformed into the MNI152
space.
To
compare the two acquisition schemes we masked the obtained results using the
anatomical definition9 of
Heschl's gyrus and V1 for the auditory and visual experiment respectively. Moreover,
for each experiment we quantified the similarity between the two sequences by
correlating the pattern of activity obtained from the EPI-based and ZTE-BURST fMRI.Results
For both the visual and auditory experiments the
ZTE-BURST activation maps closely resemble the ones obtained from the EPI
acquisition (Figure 3). Specifically, for both sequences activations related to
the vertical meridian are located in pericalcarine grey matter, whereas the
horizontal meridian is mapped at the fundus of the calcarine sulcus (Figure 3a).
Similarly, also the activation map obtained for acoustic stimulation shows the
expected pattern of response (rostrocaudal high-low-high organization) in the Heschl's
gyrus (Figure 3b). This high similarity is also testified by significant
correlation between response patterns both in visual (r=0.73, p<0.001) and
auditory (r=0.46, p<0.001) experiments.Discussion and conclusion
The ZTE-BURST
acquisition sequence allowed the computation of activation maps compatible to
those obtained via conventional EPI protocols, both with visual and acoustic
stimulation. Compared to 2D
EPI acquisition, ZTE-BURST appears more robust to geometrical distortion
artifacts and achieves substantial reduction of ASN. The current main limitation is related to temporal
resolution, which could be improved by future work optimizing sequence
parameters for fMRI.
Our preliminary results demonstrate that
ZTE-BURST can be used for silent fMRI.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Moelker A, Pattynama PMT.
Acoustic noise concerns in functional magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Brain
Mapp. 2003;20(3):123-141.
2. Gaab N,
Gabrieli JDE, Glover GH. Assessing the influence of scanner background noise on
auditory processing. I. An fMRI study comparing three experimental designs with
varying degrees of scanner noise. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007;28(8):703-720.
3. Gaab N,
Gabrieli JDE, Glover GH. Assessing the influence of scanner background noise on
auditory processing. II. An fMRI study comparing auditory processing in the
absence and presence of recorded scanner noise using a sparse design. Hum
Brain Mapp. 2007;28(8):721-732.
4. Andoh J,
Ferreira M, Leppert IR, Matsushita R, Pike B, Zatorre RJ. How restful is it
with all that noise? Comparison of Interleaved silent steady state (ISSS) and
conventional imaging in resting-state fMRI. Neuroimage.
2017;147:726-735.
5. Czisch M, Wehrle
R, Kaufmann C, Wetter TC, Holsboer F, Pollmacher T, Auer DP. Functional MRI
during sleep: BOLD signal decreases and their electrophysiological correlates. Eur
J Neurosci. 2004;20(2):566-574.
6. Schulte RF,
Buonincontri G, Costagli M, Menini A, Wiesinger F, Solana AB. Silent T2* and T2
encoding using ZTE combined with BURST. Magn Reson Med. November 2018.
7. Grodzki DM,
Jakob PM, Heismann B. Ultrashort echo time imaging using pointwise encoding
time reduction with radial acquisition (PETRA). Magn Reson Med.
2012;67(2):510-518.
8. Cox RW.
AFNI: Software for Analysis and Visualization of Functional Magnetic Resonance
Neuroimages. Comput Biomed Res. 1996;29(3):162-173.
9. Eickhoff SB,
Stephan KE, Mohlberg H, Grefkes C, Fink GR, Amunts K, Zilles K. A new SPM
toolbox for combining probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional
imaging data. 2005.