Synopsis
Induced current elimination (ICE)
method could efficiently reduce the element coupling in monopole and dipole
arrays, and ultimately improve their SNR and parallel imaging performance.
Nevertheless, in current ICE method, the decoupling element has possible effect
on the original B1 field, leading to dark spots at the areas near decoupling
elements. To address such effects, we introduce a new structure, electric-LC
(ELC) resonator, for decoupling monopole arrays. Based on the simulation
and experimental results, ELC resonators could also effectively reduce the
coupling of monopoles and meanwhile have less influence on the original B1
fields of the elements.Background
Induced current elimination (ICE) method could efficiently
reduce the element coupling in monopole and dipole arrays, and ultimately
improve their SNR performance and parallel imaging ability in MRI
1,2.
Nevertheless, in current ICE method, the induced current on the decoupling
element has possible effect on the
original B
1 field, leading to dark spots at the areas near
decoupling elements
1. To address such effects, we introduce a new structure,
Electric-
LC (ELC) resonator, for decoupling monopole arrays.
Methods
The ELC resonator, which can be used as negative
index metamaterials, is equal to two symmetrical loops connected in parallel
3,
4. The currents of two loops are opposite and thus the magnetic fields of the
two loops are cancelled out, as shown in Figure 1. In ideal cases, the ELC is
a pure electric resonator with neither magnetic nor electro- magnetic
(EM) responses. This feature makes ELC resonators promising to reduce the
coupling and simultaneously keep the original B
1 fields.
Simualtions
We numerically investigated the EM fields of a 2-ch
ICE-decoupled monopole array, a 2-ch ELC-decoupled array and a single monopole.
For all cases, monopole elements were well matched (S
11 <-30 dB)
and decoupled (S
21<-20 dB). Figure 2 shows the EM field distributions
in the transverse plane. During simulations, one monopole was excited with 1W
power while the other monopole was terminated with 50 ohm. It is clearly showed
in Figures 2A and 2C that the H field and B
1 field was disturbed
when using ICE decoupling. For the ELC-decoupled array, however, the original distribution
of H field and B
1 field can be remained (Figures 2A and 2B).
Experimental Validation
To validate the simulation results, we constructed a
2-ch ELC-decoupled and a 2-ch ICE-decoupled monopole arrays (Figure 3). GRE images
on a water phantom were measured on a Siemens 7T whole-body scanner. The imaging
parameters were: FA = 25
0, TR/TE= 100/10 ms, FOV= 250Χ250 mm
2. During
experiments, one channel was used as transmit/receive coil while the other
channel was terminated with a 50-ohm load. The slice chosen for MR imaging was
is about 3 cm apart from the GND. Similar to
previous work
1, the MR image of regular ICE-decoupled array has a dark spot near the
decouple element (arrow in red color in Figure 3D) . For the ELC-decoupled array, however, no
signal cancellation or dark spot was observed. In addition, we measured the
S-parameter plots of the ELC-decoupled monopole array (Figure 4B) and
compared them with simulated plots (Figure 4A). The good agreement of
S-parameter plots also indicates that the simulation results are reliable and
accuracy.
Discussions
From
the simulation and experimental results, we found ELC resonators could also
effectively reduce the coupling of monopoles and meanwhile have less influence
on the original B
1 fields of the elements. However, this approach
has several limitations based on our practical experience. Frist, the ELC
decoupling is sensitive to the load and its bandwidth is very narrow (Figure
4), thus readjust of capacitors are necessary for each imaging sample. Second, in
this specific design, we found MR images on some transverse slices still have dark
spots. This can be attributed to the large size of the ELC resonator which
makes it is not an ideal electric-only coupler.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
[1] X. Yan,
et al, Proc. ISMRM, 3478 (2015). [2]
X. Yan, et al, Proc. ISMRM, 3118 (2015). [2] D.
Schurig, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 041109 (2006). [3] R. Liu, et al, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 90, 263504 (2007).