Processing math: 14%


Estimation of Fiber Packing Correlation Length by Varying Diffusion Gradient Pulse Duration
Hong-Hsi Lee1, Gregory Lemberskiy1, Els Fieremans1, and Dmitry S. Novikov1

1New York University, Center for Biomedical Imaging, New York, NY, United States

Synopsis

Finite pulse duration δ of diffusion gradient has typically been a source of bias for quantifying microstructure. Here, we suggest to use the diffusivity dependence on δ to reveal the correlation length of the fiber packing, an essential μm–level characteristic of microstructure, thereby turning the finite pulse duration to our advantage. We validate our method in a fiber phantom that mimics an axonal packing geometry, and the estimated correlation length matches the fiber radius. Future work will focus on the evaluation of its potential as biomarkers for in vivo brain scans, such as axonal density and outer axonal diameters.

Purpose

To quantify microstructural parameters in a fiber geometry using PGSE with a finite pulse width. The finite pulse duration δ is typically a source of bias for quantifying microstructure[1]. Here, we use the diffusivity dependence D(Δ,δ) on δ in order to reveal the correlation length lc of the fiber packing, an essential μm–level characteristic of microstructure, thereby turning the finite pulse duration to our advantage. We validate our method in a fiber phantom[2] that mimics an axonal packing geometry. Specifically, we estimate phantom parameters from measuring D(Δ,δ) by varying δ at fixed Δ, and predict the measurement outcome with varying Δ at fixed δ without adjustable parameters.

Methods

Theory. The instantaneous diffusion coefficient D_{\rm{inst}}(\Delta)=D_∞+A/\Delta^ϑ approaches its bulk value D_∞ according to a power law with dynamical exponent ϑ, related to the disorder class and the spatial dimensionality d [2,3]; both D_{\rm{inst}}(\Delta) and the corresponding D(\Delta) decrease with \Delta for \Delta\gg{t_c}, where t_c is the time to diffuse across the packing correlation length l_c=\sqrt{2dD_∞t_c} [2]. How can one measure t_c if it does not explicitly enter the known power-law tails in D_{\rm{inst}}(\Delta)? Here we introduce a soft cut-off at \Delta\sim{t_c} for the tail in D_{\rm{inst}}(\Delta), thereby incorporating the dependence on t_c. This enables the interpretation of our measurements at \Delta,\,\delta\sim{t_c}, and thus quantifying l_c.

The effect of t_c and \delta can be evaluated via a combined low-pass filter F(ω)=F_\delta(ω)\cdot\,F_{t_c}(ω),whereF_\delta(ω)=\left(\frac{sin(ω\Delta/2)}{ω/2}\right)^2\left(\frac{sin(ωδ/2)}{ω/2}\right)^2,\,\,F_{t_c}(ω)=\left(\frac{sin(ωt_c/2)}{ωt_c/2}\right)^2, applied to the velocity autocorrelation function D(ω)=D_∞-Aϑ\cdot\,Γ(ϑ)\cdot(-iω)^ϑ in the frequency domain. The filter F_\delta accounts for finite pulse width[4,5], while the newly introduced filter F_{t_c} describes the behavior of D_{\rm{inst}}(\Delta) for all \delta\sim{t_c}. The integration of D(ω) with F(ω) gives Eqs.(1,2) in Fig.1. We apply our general result to D_\perp(\Delta,\delta) measured perpendicular to fibers, for which the exponent ϑ=1 reflects short-range disorder of restrictions in a two-dimensional geometry, and the finite-\delta measurement yields Eqs.(1,3). For \Delta\gg\tilde{t_c}\equiv\max(\delta,t_c), Eqs.(1,3) have the asymptotic solution of Eq.(4), which is compatible with previous studies[2,4]. In Eq.(4), the symmetry between \delta and t_c implies that the dependence of the measured D(\Delta,\delta) on t_c is most pronounced when \delta\sim\,t_c, which is key to using this dependence to quantify t_c, A, and D_\infty.

MRI. Diffusion measurements were performed on a fiber phantom[2,6,7], composed of aligned Dyneema® fibers (radius 8.5±1.3μm) submersed in water, on a 3T Siemens Prisma with a 64 channel head coil. The water in between the fibers mimics the extra-axonal space, while the fiber radius exceeds the axonal radius by about tenfold, enabling a more convenient range of times to probe experimentally. We used two PGSE variants– STEAM DTI and monopolar DTI (Siemens WIP 511E) on two different days (Table 1)– to show that the resulting l_c^\perp does not depend on the sequence (Table 2). For either STEAM or monopolar PGSE, in scan 1, we measured D_\perp(\Delta,\delta) and D_{||}(\Delta,\delta) with fixed \Delta=120ms and varied \delta=4-100ms; in scan 2, we fixed \delta=10ms and varied \Delta=50-600ms. Mean diffusion eigenvalues were extracted over a region of interest in the center of the fiber bundle.

Results

Using scan 1 data, we observed that the D_\perp(\Delta,\delta) decrease with \delta is captured well by Eqs.(1,3) (solid lines), and asymptotically consistent with the limits Eq.(4) and Eq.(5), dashed and dotted lines in Fig.2a and Fig.3. Corresponding parameters from fitting Eqs.(1,3) are shown in Table 2, where the estimated correlation length l_c^\perp ≈ 6μm, compatible to the fiber radius ≈ 8.5μm. D_{||}(\Delta,\delta) does not change appreciably with \delta in the range of 4~100ms. To validate our method, we predict the \Delta-dependent scan 2 results according to the parameters from scan 1(Table 2), and show that we capture the systemic decrease of D_\perp(\Delta,\delta) with \Delta (solid lines in Fig.2b). The prediction based on Eqs.(1,3) was done without any adjustable parameters, but based on the phantom properties evaluated in scan 1.

Discussion and Conclusion

Varying \delta allows for quantifying the fiber-packing geometry from D_\perp(\Delta,\delta) and estimating the correlation length l_c^\perp, which is the same order as the fiber radius. STEAM and monopolar DTI experiments were performed on different days, and resulted in slightly different fit parameters, except for the estimated l_c^\perp, which reflects the phantom’s packing geometry and was very similar between experiments. The consistency between scan 1 and scan 2 validates our framework and the assumption of short-range disorder (random fiber-packing) in the radial direction of this phantom. Future work will focus on the validation of our model, optimization of the acquisition protocol for in vivo brain scans and evaluation of its potential as biomarkers for brain pathology, e.g., by probing axonal density and outer axonal diameters.

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgement found.

References

1. Basser, et al. MRM 47,392 (2002).
2. Burcaw, et al. NI 114, 18 (2015).
3. Novikov, et al. PNAS 111, 5088 (2014).
4. Lee, et al. Proc ISMRM 23, 2777 (2015).
5. Callaghan, Principles of NMR Microscopy, Oxford (1994).
6. Fieremans, Phys. Med. Biol. 53, 5405 (2008).
7. Fieremans, et al. J. Magn. Reson. 190(2), 189 (2008).

Figures

Table 1. Acquisition protocols of STEAM DTI and monopolar DTI sequences.

Table 2. Parameters of D_\perp(Δ,δ) obtained using Eqs.(1,3) fit to data from scan 1 with fixed Δ=120 ms.

Figure 1. Eqs.(1,2) show the general solution of the diffusivity considering the low-pass filter effect of fiber-packing geometry tc and finite gradient width δ. Eqs.(1,3) show the general solution of the diffusivity when ϑ=1. Eq.(4) shows the asymptotic behavior of the solution given by Eqs.(1,3) when Δ >> max(tc,δ); Eq.(5) shows another asymptotic solution for the case of Δ > δ >> tc , which is consistent to previous studies. [1]

Figure 2. (a) With fixed Δ=120ms, D_\perp decreases with δ due to low-pass filter effect of δ and tc. Solid lines are fits based on Eqs.(1,3). The D_{||} does not change with δ. (b) With fixed δ=10 ms, D_\perp decreases with Δ. Solid lines are predictions (not fits) based on parameters acquired from scan 1 (Table 2) and the filter property described by Eqs.(1,3). The D_{||} decreases with Δ for Δ≥400ms possibly caused by fiber orientation dispersion, susceptibility, etc.

Figure 3. Magnification of the dashed box in Fig.2a to show D_\perp(Δ,δ) at fixed Δ=120 ms. Solid lines are fits based on the exact solution Eqs.(1,3); dashed lines are plotted based on the same parameters and asymptotic solution Eq.(4) for the case of Δ >> max(tc,δ), and dotted lines are plotted based on another asymptotic solution Eq.(5) for the case of Δ > δ >> tc .



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
2021