High Resolution fMRI with Constrained Evolution Reconstruction
Xuesong Li1, Lyu Li1, Xiaodong Ma1, Xue Zhang1, Zhe Zhang1, Bida Zhang2, Sen Song3, and Hua Guo1

1Center for Biomedical Imaging Research, Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, People's Republic of, 2Healthcare Department, Philips Research China, Shanghai, China, People's Republic of, 3Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, People's Republic of

Synopsis

fMRI with high temporal and/or spatial resolution is beneficial for psychology and neuroscience studies, but is limited by various factors. Compressed Sensing (CS) based methods for accelerating fMRI data acquisition are promising, however, it may be problematic because the over-smoothing effects may contaminate the hemodynamic osculation of fMRI data. This study aimed to develop a new method, Dual Extended TRACER (DUET), based on Temporal Resolution Acceleration with Constrained Evolution Reconstruction (TRACER), for accelerating fMRI acquisitions using golden angle variable density spiral. Results show DUET can recover fMRI hemodynamic signals in even 14 fold under-sampling. Compared with other methods, DUET provides better signal recovery, higher fMRI signal sensitivity and more reliable activity maps.

Introduction

fMRI with high spatiotemporal resolution is beneficial for psychology and neuroscience studies[1][2], but is limited by various factors. Compressed Sensing (CS) based methods for accelerating fMRI data acquisition have been explored and have great potential[3][4][5], however, it may be problematic because the over-smoothing effects may contaminate the hemodynamic osculation of fMRI data. Here we developed a new method, Dual Extended TRACER (DUET), based on Temporal Resolution Acceleration with Constrained Evolution Reconstruction (TRACER)[6], for accelerating fMRI acquisitions using golden angle variable density spiral (VDS). Both numerical simulation and in vivo experiments were conducted to evaluate the performance of DUET.

Theory

The CS reconstruction is formulated as follows:$$\hat{x}=arg\ min\left\{\parallel y-PFSx\parallel ^2+\lambda\parallel \psi x\parallel ^2\right\}$$Where y is the acquired k-space data, P is the k-space projection onto sampling trajectories, F is the Fourier transform operator, S is the sensitivity map, $$$\lambda$$$ is the regularization weight, x is the time series images of x-y-t, $$$\psi$$$ is a sparse transform, here the temporal total-variation (TTV) is chosen since it has shown high performance in other dynamic MRI and fMRI application[5][7] .

The proposed method DUET is based on TRACER[6] which was originally used for 3D liver dynamic imaging. In the original TRACER reconstruction, the current iteration $$${x_{n}}$$$ is kept to be close to the last reconstructed frame $$${x_{n-1}}$$$ , and a limited regularization term is added, shown by the following equation,$$\hat{x_{n}}=arg\ min\left\{\parallel y_{n}-PFSx_{n}\parallel ^2+\lambda\parallel x_{n}-x_{n-1}\parallel ^2\right\}$$where $$${y_{n}}$$$ is the k-space measurement at time n, and $$${x_{n}}$$$ is the fMRI image at time n. During TRACER reconstruction, errors may be accumulated gradually along the time series. To suppress the error accumulation, the reconstruction is executed one more time by reversing the order of time series, with the reverse reconstruction model shown as follows, $$\hat{x_{n}}=arg\ min\left\{\parallel y_{n}-PFSx_{n}\parallel ^2+\lambda\parallel x_{n}-x_{n+1}\parallel ^2\right\}$$The results by TRACER and reverse-TRACER are then averaged to form the final images. Therefore, the proposed method is called Dual Extended TRACER (DUET).

Methods

VDS is suitable for the CS method and has been successfully used in fMRI[3][8][9]. Here we used golden angle VDS for the signal acquisition.

$$$\underline{Simulation}$$$ To evaluate CS, TRACER and DUET in fMRI images with noise, single-shot EPI data were acquired, with a finger tapping task in 4 min (20s on and 20s off). Other imaging parameters: TE=35ms, TR=2s, FOV=230$$$\times$$$230$$$mm^{2}$$$, acquisition matrix =96$$$\times$$$96. For each dynamic image, 5-shot spiral data were generated as full-sampled k-space data using inverse NUFFT. Images were reconstructed using one spiral interleave (i.e. 5-fold acceleration). To test high under-sampling ratios, 14 spiral interleaves were simulated first and then one interleave was selected for the reconstruction.

$$$\underline{In\ vivo\ Experiments}$$$ In vivo fMRI experiment were conducted with visual stimulus and finger tapping tasks, all data were acquired using golden angle VDS on a Philips 3.0T Achieva TX MRI scanner (Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands) using an 32-channel head coil. The stimulus paradigm to induce functional brain activation in the visual cortex was a block design consisting of 20 s of blank screen fixation alternating with 20 s of a flashing and rotating checkerboard at 8 Hz. The stimulus paradigm of finger tapping is same as simulation. Three datasets of different spatial resolution including 2.3$$$\times$$$2.3$$$mm^{2}$$$, 1.3$$$\times$$$1.3$$$mm^{2}$$$ and 1$$$\times$$$1$$$mm^{2}$$$ were acquired. For different resolution, the full sampled data for one frame consist of 4, 8 and 14 interleaves. In the reconstruction, one interleave was used to reconstruct one frame, corresponding to 4-fold, 8-fold and 14-fold undersampling ratio.

$$$\underline{Data\ Processing}$$$ Image difference, RMSE, sensitivity (SEN), false positive rate (FPR) and activation maps using, CS temporal TV transform (CS-TTV), TRACER and DUET reconstruction were compared. Functional data were processed using FSL[10], and FWHM was set to 0 to avoid smoothness.

Results and Discussion

Fig. 1 shows the reconstruction results for the simulation data. The DUET method can achieve high quality images compared with other methods. The resultant SEN and FPR for different methods are listed in Table 1. Fig. 2 shows the time series from the activated regions in the motor cortex for different reconstruction methods. In comparison, the DUET method provided better matched signals in either 5-fold or 14-fold undersampling.

In the finger tapping in vivo experiment paradigm, DUET provided more reliable activation maps than CS-TTV method (Fig. 3) when signals were 8 fold undersampled. Fig. 4 shows the visual activation maps for different undersampling factors with different spatial resolution.

Conclusions

DUET combined with golden angle VDS sampling can reconstruct hemodynamic signals with high undersampling factors. Compared with the methods investigated, DUET provides better signal fidelity, higher fMRI signal sensitivity and more reliable activation maps.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China(61271132, 61571258) and Beijing Natural Science Foundation (7142091).

References

[1] Bakker A, et al. Science 2008. [2] Mitra A, et al. PNAS 2015. [3] Holland, D.J, et al. Magn Reson Med 2013. [4] Zong, X.P, et al. Neuroimage 2014. [5] Chavarrias, C, et al. Medical Physics 2015. [6] Xu, B. et al. Magn Reson Med 2013. [7] Feng L, et al. Magn Reson Med 2014. [8] Chang C, et al. Magn Reson Med 2011. [9] Fang Z.N, et al. Magn Reson Med 2015. [10] Smith SM, et al. Neoroimage 2004.

Figures

Fig 1, Simulation results reconstructed by density-compensated (DC) regredding, CS-TTV, TRACER and DUET. A and C: images with 5 fold and 14 fold undersampling; B and D: difference maps with the original image.

Fig 2, Signal change of the ROI voxels in simulation with Ground truth, CS-TTV, TRACER and DUET method. 5 fold under-sampling (A), 14 fold under-sampling (B)

Fig 3, Comparison of DUET and CS-TTV activation maps for the finger tapping experiment. The acquisition was 8 fold undersampled. The Z threshold was set at 2.3<Z<10 for all maps.

Fig 4, Visual activation maps from different undersampling factors, 4-fold (A), 8-fold (B), and 14-fold (C) with different resolution 2.4*2.4 (A), 1.3*1.3 (B) and 1*1mm2(C). In the 14-fold, more accurate activity was revealed since the region where blue arrows point should not be included.

Table 1. Comparision of signal sensitivity (SEN) and false positive rate (FPR) among different reconstruction methods.



Proc. Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 24 (2016)
3829