Laetitia Vionnet1, Simon Gross1, Lars Kasper1,2, Benjamin Emanuel Dietrich1, and Klaas Paul Pruessmann1
1Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2Translational Neuromodeling Unit, Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Synopsis
NMR field probe were used to record subject physiology at 7T. The signals were used to de-noise fMRI dataset and showed to be equivalent to standard devices. Introduction
In MRI, subject physiology is commonly recorded
with pulse oximetry (PPU), electrocardiography (ECG) and/or respiratory belt
for various purposes, including de-noising of fMRI
1 Setting up those
peripheral devices prolongs preparation time and reduces patient comfort
(direct skin contact/tight fit). Recently, magnetic field recording with NMR
field probes was suggested as a potential alternative
2. Placed above the
upper chest of a subject lying in the bore, they can provide highly sensitive
readouts of both cardiac and respiratory processes without direct contact to
the subject.
In this work, we explore physiology recording with
field probes during echo planar imaging and demonstrate the equivalence to
standard methods for fMRI data de-noising (RETROICOR).
Method
EPI time series
(32 transversal slices, 1.5x1.5x1.5 mm, slice TR 62.5 ms, SENSE factor 4,
150 dynamics) of a freely breathing volunteer were recorded at 7T (Philips
Achieva, 1 ch TX, 32 ch RX array, NOVA Medical). Magnetic
field evolutions were recorded during image encoding using two 19F
NMR field probes connected to a standalone spectrometer
3. Field measurements
were taken every 5 ms (10 per slice). One probe (A) was suspended anterior to the
volunteer’s chest, close to the heart. The second probe was placed posterior to
the volunteer’s chest, in the table padding (B) (fig.1).
No modifications to the imaging sequence were necessary. For comparison,
standard devices - PPU and respiratory belt - were recorded simultaneously.
The probe signals were corrected for phase
accrual caused by image encoding gradients. Linear regression of the probe phases
yielded one field value per probe acquisition. Slow field drifts due to
gradient heat up were corrected by the subtraction of 3rd-order
polynomials. Data quality after processing (fig 2a) is comparable to signals
acquired without imaging.
Cardiac and respiratory contributions were
extracted through frequency selective filtering (0.6-15Hz and 0.05-0.7Hz), sequenced
with a pattern matching algorithm (PhysIO toolbox
4). RETROICOR was used to
translate them to physiology regressors (fig. 2). Three independent regressor
sets were created with probe A, probe B and standard devices respectively. Each
set was used to identify physiological noise in the data with general linear
modelling (SPM12).
Results
The measured field changes induced by physiology
were on the order of 50-100 nT while the imaging gradient strength at the probe
position was of about 3mT (Fig.2). In probe A, the cardiac contribution is
approximatively 3 times stronger than the respiratory one. Conversely, in probe
B, respiratory contribution is about 2.5 times stronger than the cardiac one.
Fig.3 compares the F-maps (p< 0.001, uncorrected)
for the probes and the standard devices models (left side). On the right side
of fig.3, probes are compared to standard devices individually. The accordance
between probe A and the standard devices amounts to 74% (cardiac) and 87%
(respiratory) commonly detected pixels. For probe B the values are 77% and 84%
respectively.
Conclusion
NMR Probe-based magnetometry performed concurrently with MR
imaging proved to provide robust physiological readouts. We demonstrated its
utility for active physiological noise reduction in an fMRI scenario and showed
its equivalence to standard peripheral measures. These results pave the way
towards fully integrated and truly remote physiology monitoring with improved patient
comfort and reduced preparation time.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Glover, G. H.; Li, T.-Q. &
Ress, D. Magn. Reson. Med., 2000, 44, 162-16
2. Pruessmann, K. P.; Dietrich, B. E. & Barmet, C. Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med., 2011,
19, 1171
3. Dietrich, B. E.; Brunner, D. O.; Wilm, B. J., Barmet,
C.; Gross, S.; Kasper, L.; Haeberlin, M.; Schmid, T.; Vannesjo, S. J.; Pruessmann,
K. P.; Magn. Reson. Med., 2015
4. Kasper, L.; Marti S.; Vannesjö, S. J.; Hutton,
C.; Dolan, R.; Weiskopf, N.; Stephan, K.E. & Pruessmann, K.P. Proc. Org. Hum. Brain Mapping, 2009,
15, 395.