Thomas O'Reilly1, Wyger Brink1, and Andrew Webb1
1Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
Synopsis
Improvements are proposed for practical use
of high permittivity materials in high field neuroimaging. These result in a
simple formula to design materials with specified permittivity, formulation to
improve the short term rigidity and long term stability of the material, and a
method to incorporate devices such as headphones into the dielectric pad
design.Introduction
Regions of constructive and destructive
interference of the B1+ field occur in high-field MRI as
the RF wavelength is of the same order as the imaging region. Several techniques exist for B1+
shimming including the use of transmit arrays and k-space RF pulse design. “Dielectric
pads” using high permittivity materials have been shown to be a simple and
widely applicable alternative, particularly in neuroimaging at 7T 1-3.
The aims of this current work are to improve the practical application of such
pads in three different areas: (i) to provide a simple method to design pads
with a specific permittivity, (ii) to improve the properties of the dielectric
pad in terms of rigidity and long-term stability, and (iii) to test whether
integration of devices such as headphones can be achieved while maintaining the
advantages of the improved B1+ homogeneity.
Methods
Mixtures with different barium titanate (εr ≈ 2000) and calcium titanate (εr ≈ 160) ratios in deionized water were prepared . Complex
permittivity measurements were performed using a SPEAG Dielectric Assessment
Kit DAK-12 .
Data were fitted to different mixing rules to determine the one which best fits the
tri-component properties. The experimental measurements were repeated with different
gelling agents (agar, xantham gum, phytagel and hydroxyethyl-cellulose (HEC))
added to increase the viscosity of the dielectric pad.
To determine the effect of integrating headphones
into the dielectric pad (by introducing a hole at the level of the ears), electromagnetic
simulations were performed using xFDTD (7.4.0.2, Remcom, PA,
United States) and the Duke body model . Based on the simulation
results, dielectric pads were constructed using a mixture of calcium and barium
titanates to give a relative permittivity of 150 with hole dimensions of 65 x
55mm. B1+ maps of the brain were obtained using the DREAM
sequence
4, as well as anatomical turbo spin echo images, on a 7T
Achieva MRI system (Philips Achieva, Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands)
in healthy volunteers.
Results
The most appropriate mixing rule for the
permittivity of aqueous suspensions of mixtures of barium titanate and calcium
titanate was determined to be the Lichtenecker logarithmic law5
εeff=εCafCa εBafBa εwfw
where f represents volume fractions of calcium
titanate, barium titanate and water. Figure 1 shows
the fitted plot to individual data points, allowing the design a pad with
any permittivity between 110 and 300.
Of the different gelling agents used, the stability
(both short-term and long-term) of the aqueous dielectric suspensions was
improved most using 0.5 g of HEC per 100 ml of water. The addition of HEC to
the dielectric material has no impact on the permittivity of the suspension but
increases the conductivity from 0.1 S/m to 0.15 S/m. EM simulations showed that
the impact of this increased conductivity on the performance of the pad in vivo
is minimal.
The results of the EM simulations to study
the effect of a hole in the dielectric pads are shown in Figures 2 and 3, in
terms of the B1+ and displacement currents in the pads,
respectively. For a fixed permittivity of 110 a drop in the secondary B1+
created by the pad is seen at the location of the hole (Figure 2), but there
is still significant secondary field enhancement elsewhere. Increasing the
permittivity of the dielectric material in the pad to 150 largely compensates
for the drop in the B1+ caused by the hole. Figure 3
shows that the displacement currents within the pad are not severely affected (except
at the location of the hole) explaining the improved performance (compared to
no pad) even in the presence of the hole. Figure 4 shows in vivo results using
a turbo spin echo imaging sequence. In the absence of dielectric pads there is
a well-characterized severe loss in image contrast and signal intensity in the
temporal lobe and cerebellum. Using the dielectric pads with a hole for the
earpads/headphones (shown in Figure 5) and a relative permittivity of 150 gives
substantial improvements in image quality, similar to the effects of a full pad
with relative permittivity of 110.
Conclusions
Using the Lichteneker logarithmic mixing
rule allows a range of permittivities to be used for the construction of dielectric
pads. Hydroxyethyl cellulose can be used to improve the stability of the dielectric
suspensions with minimal impact on the efficacy of the dielectric pad. Introduction
of a hole in the pad to accommodate headphones (or other devices) leads to a
drop in the secondary B1+ produced by the pad at the
location of the hole, but increasing the permittivity of the pad to ~150
produces very similar increases in image uniformity as the conventional full
pad with relative permittivity 110.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by NWO-STW Technology Grant 13783.References
1. Haines,K., Smith N.B., and Webb A.G. New
high dielectric constant materials for tailoring the B1+ distribution at high
magnetic fields, J.Magn.Reson, 203, 323-327, 2010.
2. O'Brien KR, Magill AW, Delacoste J,
Marques JP, Kober T, Fautz HP, Lazeyras F, Krueger G. Dielectric pads and low-
B1+ adiabatic pulses: complementary techniques to optimize structural T1 w
whole-brain MP2RAGE scans at 7 tesla.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014
Oct;40(4):804-12.
3. Vu AT, Auerbach E, Lenglet C, Moeller 2,
Sotiropoulos SN, Jbabdi S, Andersson J, Yacoub E, Ugurbil K. High resolution
whole brain diffusion imaging at 7T for the Human Connectome Project.
Neuroimage. 2015 Nov 15;122:318-31.
4. Nehrke, K. and Börnert, P. “DREAM – a
novel approach for robust, ultrafast, multislice B1 mapping.” Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine 68. 5 (2012).
5. Goncharenko, A.V., Lozovski, V.Z.,
Venger,E.F. “Lichtenecker’s Equation: applicability and limitations.” Optics
Communications 174. 1 (2000).