Lars Kasper1, Maria Engel1, Jakob Heinzle2, Matthias Mueller-Schrader2, Jonas Reber1, Thomas Schmid1, Christoph Barmet1, Bertram Jakob Wilm1, Klaas Enno Stephan2,3,4, and Klaas Paul Pruessmann1
1Institute for Biomedical Engineering, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 2Translational Neuromodeling Unit, Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 3Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 4Max Planck Institute for Metabolism Research, Cologne, Germany
Synopsis
We investigate the spatial specificity of sub-millimeter
(0.8mm) single-shot spiral fMRI, and its feasibility for functional phase
contrast. Scrutinizing activation patterns of a visual paradigm in 6 subjects, we
find that significant contrast changes occur between adjacent voxels, contributing
to the evidence of spatial specificity of spiral acquisition as well as gradient
echo BOLD contrast, and its possible applications in laminar or columnar fMRI.
Furthermore, the vessel-localized nature of the phase activation suggests its suitability for masking macrovascular confound effects.
Introduction
fMRI with sub-millimeter spatial resolution enables the detailed
exploration of functional brain organization, e.g., at the level of cortical layers
or columns [1–3].
Conceptually, spiral readouts of gradient-echo (GRE) BOLD
appear well suited for this task due to their superior average k-space speed
compared to EPI [4], improving acquisition
efficiency for increased resolution.
However, two concerns potentially limit the spatial specificity
of high-resolution spiral GRE fMRI. First, the spiral point spread function
(PSF) is blurred in the presence of B0 inhomogeneity. Secondly,
though SAR and time-efficient, GRE acquisition is more sensitive to
intravascular BOLD signal, stemming e.g., from macroscopic vessels [5].
Recently, anatomically veridical single-shot 2D spirals
without conspicuous blurring have been deployed at 7T [6,7], owing to an expanded signal
model incorporating static and dynamic B0 field changes, and
iterative cg-SENSE reconstruction [8]. Furthermore, this approach
also yields raw phase data of high quality [9], intrinsically unwrapped by
the B0 map demodulation in the model.
Here, we therefore explore the spatial specificity of BOLD
data acquired with single-shot 2D spirals of nominal 0.8mm resolution. We
scrutinize the discriminability of activation , in a visual paradigm for
adjacent voxels. We further investigate the utility of phase data of such
high-resolution to detect and remove intravascular BOLD effects that manifest
as task-locked coherent phase change [10].Methods
Setup
Six young healthy volunteers were scanned on a 7T Philips Achieva
system, using a 1-channel transmit, 32-channel receive coil (Nova Medical). To
monitor the spiral trajectories, 16 19F-NMR field probes [11] were positioned between the
coils on a nylon frame and connected to a separate MR acquisition system [12]. Visual stimuli were presented
on an LCD visor (VisuaStim).
Sequence, Trajectories and Image Reconstruction
We
designed a 2D single shot spiral trajectory (4x undersampled FOV 220 mm) with
0.8mm in-plane resolution and time-optimal readout (57ms, Fig.1) for our gradient
slew-rate and amplitude limits [13]. In total, 36 transverse-oblique slices (0.9mm+0.1mm
gap) were acquired covering the visual cortex with TR=3.3s and TE=20ms. Concurrent
field recording with NMR probes was performed for every 3rd spiral
trajectory at 1Mhz bandwidth. The probes were excited just before the start of
the readout gradients (Fig. 1), and their phase signal converted into global
phase and k-space trajectory coefficients on the dedicated spectrometer.
A
spin-warp multi-echo sequence (6 echoes, dTE=1ms) was measured prior to the
functional runs with identical geometry to serve as an anatomical reference, as
well as to estimate sensitivity and off-resonance map for the expanded signal
model [14] .
The signal model comprised these maps as well as the
measured spiral field dynamics (k0, kx,y,z) to express
the measured coil data, and was inverted by an iterative cg-SENSE
reconstruction algorithm with multi-frequency interpolation [8,15]. This yielded complex
reconstructed images, of which modulus and argument were taken for subsequent
separate time-series analysis. Note that, in particular, no spatial phase
unwrapping or background phase removal was performed.
FMRI Paradigm and Analysis
Subjects performed a visual quarter-field stimulation
paradigm for 5.5 minutes (100 volumes). Two blocks of 15 s duration presented
flickering checkerboard wedges in complementary pairs of the visual quarter-fields
(ULLR=upper left and lower right visual field, URLL=upper right and lower left). Blocks were alternated and
interleaved with fixation periods of equal length, and the whole cycle repeated
5x.
Preprocessing included realignment and smoothing (0.8mm). Using
a GLM analysis in SPM12, we evaluated both differential t-contrasts +/-
(ULLR-URLL) of the 2 blocks as well as individual conditions (ULLR, URLL). Contrasts
are reported uncorrected for multiple comparisons (p<0.001) to allow for
better scrutiny of overlapping activations.Results
We found high quality of both raw spiral magnitude and phase
images (Fig.2, after realignment), despite the long single-shot readout
duration of nearly 60ms that exacerbate B0 blurring. Temporal stability was
sufficient for fMRI, as seen in the SFNR maps.
Single-subject activation maps for the magnitude data, overlaid
on the mean functional images, contain typical stimulation patterns in visual
cortex (Fig.3A), which follow gyrus anatomy when overlaid on the multi-echo
reference image (Fig.3B). Spatial specificity is evident in contrast changes
for adjacent voxels for both differential and individual contrasts with little
overlap between conditions (Fig. 3C,D). These results are reproduced in all 6
subjects (Fig. 4).
For the phase data, a two-sided contrast of the individual
conditions gave the strongest activation maps, pointing to a different
mechanism of activation (Fig. 5). Activation sites partially coincide with the
magnitude contrasts, but are less widespread and more confined to darker locations
(short T2*), presumably larger vessels.Discussion
Single-shot spiral fMRI with sub-mm spatial specificity has
been realized. On a standard gradient system acquisition efficiency was
enhanced to a 220x220x36 mm FOV brain image at 0.8 mm nominal resolution (i.e.,
a matrix size of 275x275x36) at a typical TR of 3.3s. The magnitude fMRI data
shows discriminative activation down to the voxel level, while phase data
highlights possible sources of intravascular BOLD changes in larger vessels,
suitable for masking. Future work will expand this phase analysis to include
phase time courses into the GLM or analyze it in a functional QSM framework [16].Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the NCCR “Neural Plasticity and
Repair” at ETH Zurich and the University of Zurich (LK, KPP, KES), the René and
Susanne Braginsky Foundation (KES), and the University of Zurich (KES).
Technical support from Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands, is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] L. Huber et al., NeuroImage,
2018, 164, 131.
[2] J. Goense, H. Merkle, N.K. Logothetis, Neuron,
2012, 76, 629.
[3] S. Kashyap et al., Scientific
Reports, 2018, 8, 1.
[4] G.H. Glover, NeuroImage, 2012, 62,
706.
[5] K. Uludağ, B. Müller-Bierl, K. Uğurbil, NeuroImage,
2009, 48, 150.
[6] M. Engel et al., Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 2018, 80, 1836.
[7] L. Kasper et al., in Proc.
Intl. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 25, 2017, 582.
[8] K.P. Pruessmann et al., Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 2001, 46, 638―651.
[9] L. Kasper et al., NeuroImage,
2018, 168, 88.
[10] M. Bianciardi, P. van Gelderen, J.H.
Duyn, Human Brain Mapping, 2013, n/a.
[11] N. De Zanche et al., Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 2008, 60, 176―186.
[12] B.E. Dietrich et al., Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 2016, 75, 1831.
[13] M. Lustig, S.-J. Kim, J.M. Pauly, IEEE
Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2008, 27, 866.
[14] B.J. Wilm et al., Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 2011, 65, 1690.
[15] L.C. Man, J.M. Pauly, A. Macovski, Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 1997, 37, 785.
[16] D.Z. Balla et al., NeuroImage,
2014, 100, 112.
[17] V.D. Calhoun et al., Magnetic
Resonance in Medicine, 2002, 48, 180.