Trading off SNR and resolution in MR images

NMR in Biomedicine

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 488-494

  Kale, Shoan C ^a,b   Chen, X Josette ^a,b   Henkelman, R Mark ^a,b  

^a HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Fixed imaging time; MRI; Resolution; Signal to noise ratio; Tradeoff

Indexed keywords

ACQUISITION TIME; EX-VIVO; FIXED IMAGING; FIXED IMAGING TIME; FIXED TIME; HIGH QUALITY; ISOTROPIC RESOLUTION; MINIMAL EFFECTS; MOUSE BRAIN; MR IMAGES; MRI; RESOLUTION; SIMULATED IMAGES; SNR RANGE; SPATIAL RESOLUTION; STRONG CONSISTENCY; TRADEOFF;

ACOUSTIC INTENSITY; COMMUNICATION CHANNELS (INFORMATION THEORY); THREE DIMENSIONAL;

SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; DISEASE SIMULATION; FEMALE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MOUSE; NEUROANATOMY; NEUROIMAGING; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OPTICAL RESOLUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; TIME;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MALE; MICE;

EID: 68149172756     PISSN: 09523480     EISSN: 10991492     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nbm.1359     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Parker DL, Gullberg GT. Signal-to-noise efficiency in magnetic resonance imaging. Med. Phys. 1990; 17: 250-257.
2. Redpath TW. Signal-to-noise ratio in MRI. Br. J. Radiol. 1998; 71: 704-707.
3. Nishimura D. Noise considerations. In Nishimura D (ed.). Principles of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, CA, 1996; p 158-168.
4. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn. Reson. Med. 1999; 42: 952-962.
5. Nieman BJ, Bock NA, Bishop J, Sled JG, Chen XJ, Henkelman RM. Fast spin-echo for multiple mouse magnetic resonance phenotyping. Magn. Reson. Med. 2005; 54: 532-537.
6. Black RD, Early TA, Roemer PB, et al. A high-temperature super-conducting receiver for nuclear magnetic resonance microscopy. Science 1993; 259: 793.
7. Constable RT, Henkelman RM. Contrast, resolution, and detectability in MR imaging. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 1991; 15: 297-303.
8. Edelstein WA, Glover GH, Hardy CJ, Redington RW. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in NMR imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 1986; 3: 604-618.
9. Fuderer M. The information content of MR images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 1988; 7: 368-380.
10. Henkelman RM, Dazai J, Lifshitz N, et al. High throughput microimaging of the mouse brain. Proc. Int. Soc. Mag. Reson. Med. 2006; 2010, 14: 396.
11. Tyszka JM, Readhead C, Bearer EL, Pautler RG, Jacobs RE. Statistical diffusion tensor histology reveals regional dysmyelination effects in the shiverer mouse mutant. Neuroimage 2006; 29: 1058-1065.
12. Henkelman RM. Measurement of signal intensities in the presence of noise in MR images. Med. Phys. 1985; 12: 232-233.
13. Anonymous. Descriptive statistics. In: Zwillinger D (ed.). CRC Standard Mathematical Tables and Formulae, 30th edn. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1996; p 601-603.
14. Owen RS, Wehrli FW. Predictability of SNR and reader preference in clinical MR imaging. Magn. Reson. Imaging 1990; 8: 737-745.
15. Rubenstein JD, Li JG, Majumdar S, Henkelman RM. Image resolution and signal-to-noise ratio requirements for MR imaging of degenerative cartilage. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1997; 169: 1089-1096.
16. Kale SC, Lerch JP, Henkelman RM, Chen XJ. Optimization of the SNR-resolution tradeoff for registration in magnetic resonance images. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2008. 29: 1147-1158.
17. Behin R, Bishop J, Henkelman RM. Dynamic range requirements for MRI. Concepts Magn. Reson. 2005; 26B: 28-35.
18. Field DJ. Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1987; 4: 2379-2394.