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
l⊥c 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).