Cited by 648Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Comparison of physiological noise at 1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T and optimization of fMRI acquisition parameters

Triantafyllou, C., Hoge, R.D., Krueger, G., Wiggins, C.J., Potthast, A., Wiggins, G.C., Wald, L.L.·2005·NeuroImage

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that under some conditions, noise fluctuations in an fMRI time-course are dominated by physiological modulations of the image intensity with secondary contributions from thermal image noise and that these two sources scale differently with signal intensity, susceptibility weighting (TE) and field strength. The SNR of the fMRI time-course was found to be near its asymptotic limit for moderate spatial resolution measurements at 3 T with only marginal gains expected from acquisition at higher field strengths. In this study, we investigate the amplitude of image intensity fluctuations in the fMRI time-course at magnetic field strengths of 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T as a function of image resolution, flip angle and TE. The time-course SNR was a similar function of the image SNR regardless of whether the image SNR was modulated by flip angle, image resolution, or field strength. For spatial resolutions typical of those currently used in fMRI (e.g., 3 x 3 x 3 mm(3)), increases in image SNR obtained from 7 T acquisition produced only modest increases in time-course SNR. At this spatial resolution, the ratio of physiological noise to thermal image noise was 0.61, 0.89, and 2.23 for 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T. At a resolution of 1 x 1 x 3 mm(3), however, the physiological to thermal noise ratio was 0.34, 0.57, and 0.91 for 1.5 T, 3 T and 7 T for TE near T2*. Thus, by reducing the signal strength using higher image resolution, the ratio of physiologic to image noise could…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.01.007

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 3-mm isotropic voxels have a higher signal-to-noise ratio compared with smaller voxels.

    “Despite the small structure of the SN/VTA, we thus chose 3-mm isotropic voxels because of their higher signal-to-noise ratio compared with smaller voxels61.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Triantafyllou, C., Hoge, R. D., Krueger, G., Wiggins, C. J., Potthast, A., Wiggins, G. C., & Wald, L. L.
Affiliations
Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Triantafyllou, C.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-05
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
243-250
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976781461
Cited by
648
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 25
FWCI
13.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of National Drug Control Policy
  • National Institutes of Health (P41 RR14075, RO1 RR14543 A01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
physiological noise, signal-to-noise ratio, field strength, spatial resolution, flip angle, echo time, noise optimization
MeSH terms
Electromagnetic Fields, Head, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Oxygen, Head Movements

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review