Using multiband-EPI for diffusion imaging on low-dimensional array coils

This is a continuation of the previous post looking at MB-EPI on a receive coil with limited spatial information provided by its geometry, such as the 12-channel TIM coil or the 4-channel neck coil on a Siemens Trio.

Simultaneous multi-slice (SMS), aka multi-band (MB), offers considerable time savings for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Unlike in fMRI, where MB factors of 4 or more are quite common, in DWI few studies use MB factors greater than 3. While it may be feasible in principle to push the acquisition time even lower without generating artifacts using a large array coil like the Siemens 32-channel coil, we run into another consideration: heating. Heating isn't usually a concern for gradient echo MB-EPI used in conventional fMRI experiments. In fMRI, the excitation flip angles are generally 78° or less. But with DWI we have a double whammy. Not only do we want a large excitation flip angle to create plenty of signal, we also require a refocusing pulse that is, by convention, set at twice the flip angle of the excitation pulse. (The standard nomenclature is 90° for excitation and 180° for refocusing, but the actual angles may be lower than this in practice, for a variety of reasons I won't go into here.) Now the real kicker. The heat deposition, which we usually measure through the specific absorption rate (SAR), scales quadratically with flip angle. Thus, a single 180° refocusing pulse deposits as much heat as four 90° pulses! (See Note 1.) But wait! It gets worse! In using simultaneous multi-slice - the clue's in the name - we're not doing the equivalent of one excitation or refocusing at a time, but a factor MB of them. Some quick arithmetic to give you a feel for the issue. A diffusion scan run with 90° and 180° pulses, each using MB=3, will deposit fifteen times as much heat as a conventional EPI scan run at the same TR but with a single 90° pulse. On a 3 T scanner, it means we are quickly flirting with SAR limits when the MB factor goes beyond three. The only remedy is to extend TR, thereby undermining the entire basis for deploying SMS in the first place.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. With a low-dimensional array such as the Siemens 12-channel TIM coil we would be delighted to get MB to work at all for diffusion imaging. The chances of flirting with the SAR limits are a distant dream.


Phantom tests for diffusion imaging

The initial tests were on the FBIRN gel phantom. I compared MB=3 and MB=2 for the 32-channel, 12-channel and neck coils using approximately the same slice coverage throughout. The TR was allowed to increase as needed in going from MB=3 to MB=2. Following CMRR's recommendations, I used the SENSE1 coil combine option throughout. I also used the Grad. rev. fat suppr. option to maximize scalp fat suppression, something that we have found is important for reducing ghosts in larger subjects (especially on the 32-channel coil, which has a pronounced receive bias around the periphery). For the diffusion weighting itself, I opted to use the scheme developed for the UK Biobank project, producing two shells at b=1000 s/mm² and b=2000 s/mm², fifty directions apiece. Four b=0 images are also included, one per twenty diffusion images. (For routine use we now actually use ten b=0 images, one every ten DW images, for a total of 111 directions.) The nominal spatial resolution is (2 mm)³. The TE is 94.8 ms, which is the minimum value attainable at the highest b value used.

There are over a hundred images we could inspect, and you would want to check all of them before you committed to a specific protocol in a real experiment because there might be some strange interaction between the eddy currents from the diffusion-weighting gradients and the MB scheme. For brevity, however, I will restrict the comparisons here to examples of the b=0, 1000 and 2000 scans. I decided to make a 2x2 comparison of a single band reference image (SBRef), a b=0 image (the b=0 scan obtained after the first twenty DW scans), and the first b=1000 and b=2000 images in the series. While only a small fraction of the entire data set, these views are sufficient to identify the residual aliasing artifacts that tell us where the acceleration limit sits.

First up, the results from the 32-channel coil, which is our performance benchmark. No artifacts are visible by eye for any of the b=0, b=1000 or b=2000 scans at either MB=2 or MB=3:

32-channel coil, MB=3. TL: Single band reference image. TR: first b=0 image (21st acquisition in the series). BL: first b=1000 image. BR: First b=2000 image

Using multi-band (aka SMS) EPI on on low-dimensional array coils

The CMRR's release notes for their MB-EPI sequence recommend using the 32-channel head coil for multiband EPI, and they caution against using the 12-channel head coil:

"The 32-channel Head coil is highly recommended for 3T. The 12-channel Head Matrix is not recommended, but it can be used for acceptable image quality at low acceleration factors."

But what does "low acceleration" mean in practice? And what if your only choice is a 12-channel coil? Following a couple of inquiries from colleagues, I decided to find out where the limits might be.

Let's start by looking at the RF coil layout, and review why the 12-channel coil is considered an inferior choice. Is it simply fewer independent channels, or something else? The figure below shows the layout of the 12-ch and 32-ch coils offered by Siemens:

From Kaza, Klose & Lotze (2011).

In most cases, the EPI slice direction will be transverse or transverse oblique (e.g. along AC-PC), meaning that we are slicing along the long axis of the magnet (magnet Z axis) and along the front-to-back dimension of the head coil. Along the long axis of the 12-ch coil there is almost no variation in the X-Y plane. At the very back of the coil the loops start to curve towards a point of convergence, but still there is no distinction in any direction in the X-Y plane. Compare that situation to the 32-ch coil. It has five distinct planes of coils along the Z axis. With the 32-ch coil, then, we can expect the hardware - the layout of the loops - to provide a good basis for separating simultaneously acquired axial slices, whereas there is no such distinct spatial information available from the coil elements in the 12-channel coil. In the 12-channel coil, every loop detects a significant and nearly equal fraction of any given slice along Z.

Use of split slice GRAPPA (aka Leak Block) for SMS-EPI reconstruction

Accurate separation of the simultaneously acquired slices is one of the bigger limitations of the SMS-EPI method, compared to the processing used for conventional multislice EPI. The default SMS reconstruction, as used in my two introductory posts on the SMS sequences from CMRR (MB-EPI) and MGH (Blipped CAIPI), is a slice dimension adaptation of the GeneRalized Autocalibrating Partial PArallel (GRAPPA) method that was originally applied in-plane to acceleration of the phase encoding direction. It's not essential to understand the GRAPPA method applied in-plane for the purposes of understanding this post or for SMS reconstruction more generally. But if you're curious I wrote a brief introduction to in-plane GRAPPA in 2011. That post was specifically concerned with motion sensitivity of (in-plane) GRAPPA. I'll be looking in more detail at the motion sensitivity of SMS in a future post. In this post I want to compare the standard SMS reconstruction - what is generally termed Slice GRAPPA - with an alternative known as Split Slice GRAPPA. The latter option is termed "Leak Block" in the CMRR pulse sequence, MB-EPI.

What's the concern?

CMRR's parameter nomenclature offers a strong clue to the problem. In conventional EPI reconstruction we use a 2D Fourier transform (FT) which produces some amount of ringing. We also use slices that have some degree of cross-talk to neighboring slices, arising out of the limitations of frequency selectivity. So, while we think of voxels as perfect little rectangles or cubes, in reality they are blurry beasts that spread their signal into adjoining voxels because of a non-rectangular point-spread function (PSF). The dimensions we assign a voxel are entirely nominal.

With SMS we have a broader spatial problem than just non-cubic PSF. Separation of the simultaneous slices can leave signal in an incorrect position that is quite some distance from where it is supposed to be. It's a longer length scale error than the simple PSF of a voxel. Let's suppose we acquire four 2 mm slices simultaneously, 84 total slices. In one SMS acquisition we will have four slices separated by one quarter of the total slice dimension extent of 168 mm, or about 42 mm (assuming no additional inter-slice gap). Do a quick thought experiment. Imagine that in the first slice there is a very strong activation and nothing in the other three. If there is a large residual spatial error arising from poor SMS separation then we might start seeing this activation projected 4.2, 8.4 or even 12.6 cm from where it should be! And how would we know that the distant activation sites were erroneous?

This slice leakage, as it's usually called in the literature, may be strongest for simultaneously acquired neighbors but may extend throughout the slice dimension, between simultaneously acquired slices that might be quite far apart in anatomical space. And, as the thought experiment illustrates, one might assume that distant leakage would be harder to spot than the conventional cross-talk between successively acquired slices in conventional multislice EPI, or errors arising from the PSF more generally. The PSF can usually be interpreted as a local phenomenon, with errors decreasing monotonically from a voxel. Not so with SMS slice separation, meaning there is more risk of interpreting a false positive remote from the true activation site.

At this point we can recognize that reducing leakage is a noble, perhaps essential, goal. As usual with MRI, however, there's a catch. Reducing leakage using the Split Slice GRAPPA reconstruction may come at the cost of increasing in-plane artifacts. The overall (total) artifact level might be higher, too. I'll go into these issues in some detail below. The goal of this post is to perform a rudimentary assessment of the artifacts and determine the circumstances when Split Slice GRAPPA might be preferred over the conventional Slice GRAPPA reconstruction. For the CMRR sequence this amounts to whether or not to enable the Leak Block option.

Starting points for SMS-EPI at 3 T: Part II

In an earlier post I presented three starting protocols for the CMRR version of SMS-EPI, referred to as the MB-EPI sequence here. I'll use italics to indicate a specific pulse sequence whereas SMS-EPI, no italics, refers to the family of simultaneous multi-slice methods. In this post I'll develop a similar set of three starting protocols for the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) version of SMS-EPI, called Blipped-CAIPI. I'm going to build upon the explanations of the last post so please cross reference for parameter explanations and background.

As for the previous post there are several things to bear in mind. This series is Siemens-centric, specifically Trio-centric. While many of the concepts and parameter options may apply to other platforms there will be minor differences in parameter naming conventions and, perhaps, major differences in implementation that you will need to consider before you proceed. For Siemens users, I am running aging software, syngoMR version B17A. The age of the software and the old reconstruction board on the scanner means that you can expect to see much faster reconstruction on a newer system. I hope, but cannot guarantee, that the actual image quality and artifact level won't differ massively from a Trio running VB17A to a new Prisma running VE11C. I'll keep you updated as I learn more.


Preliminaries

As before, for this post I am going to be using a 32-channel receive-only head coil. The SMS-EPI sequences can be made to work with a 12-channel coil but only in a reduced fashion because the 12-channel coil has minimal receive field heterogeneity along the magnet z axis - the struts run parallel with the magnet axis except at the coil's rear, where they converge - and generally we want to do axial slices (along z) for fMRI. I don't yet know whether SMS-EPI would work well on the 20-channel head/neck coil on a Prisma, it's something I hope to investigate in the near future. But a 64-channel head/neck coil on a Prisma will definitely work for SMS-EPI. Better or worse than a 32-channel coil on a Prisma? I have no idea yet.

The Blipped-CAIPI sequence version 2.2 was obtained through a C2P (Core Competence Partnership) with MGH. Installation was a breeze: a single executable to port to the scanner and one click, done. The development team offers an informative but brief 7-page manual which will be useful to anyone who has read the SMS-EPI literature and has a basic understanding of how SMS works. It's not a starting point for everyday neuroscience, however. The manual mentions a .edx (protocol) file as a starting point for 2, 2.5 and 3 mm resolution scans, but in the file I downloaded for VB17A the contents didn't include it. Perhaps contact MGH if you are on another software version and you'd like a .edx file rather than building your own protocol, e.g. by recreating what you see here.

Starting points for SMS-EPI at 3 T

Several people have approached me for advice on using simultaneous multi-slice (SMS) EPI for fMRI experiments. This is the sequence also known as multiband (MB) EPI. I'll come back to nomenclature in a moment. First, though, a brief introduction to what may become a lengthy series of posts. I'm going to focus on BOLD-based fMRI exclusively for the time being - sorry diffusion and ASL folks - and because I presently only have a Siemens Trio at my disposal, everything I write will have strong bias in that direction. That said, I do anticipate writing later posts dealing with SMS-EPI (for fMRI) on a Siemens Prisma at least, and I can already envisage a need for posts dealing with receive field normalization, in-plane parallel imaging, distortion correction options, reconstruction options and multi-echo SMS, to name just a few advanced topics. But first things first - to get going!


Options for SMS-EPI on a Siemens 3 T scanner

I am aware of three SMS-EPI pulse sequences for a Siemens Trio. One comes from the University of Minnesota's Center for Magnetic Resonance Research (hereafter CMRR), one comes from the Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at Massachusetts General Hospital (hereafter MGH), and one comes from Siemens as a work-in-progress (WIP) aftermarket sequence. For this post I'm going to be using the sequence provided by CMRR. Since CMRR refer to their sequence as multiband (MB) EPI I shall stick to this nomenclature here, and reserve the term SMS-EPI to apply to the broader family of pulse sequences. I may do posts on the MGH and WIP sequences in the future, but the CMRR sequence has been used the most broadly to date (e.g. the Human Connectome Project, which I'll discuss at length below) and so it offers the most immediate, road-tested place to start.

i-fMRI: A virtual whiteboard discussion on multi-echo, simultaneous multi-slice EPI

Disclaimer: This isn't an April Fool!

I'd like to use the collective wisdom of the Internet to discuss the pros and cons of a general approach to simultaneous multislice (SMS) EPI that I've been thinking about recently, before anyone wastes time doing any actual programming or data acquisition.

Multi-echo EPI for de-noising fMRI data

There has been quite a lot of interest in using multi-echo EPI to characterize and de-noise time series data, e.g.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22209809

These methods rest on one critical aspect: they use in-plane parallel imaging (GRAPPA or SENSE, usually depending on the scanner vendor) to render the per slice acquisition time reasonable. For example, with R=2 acceleration it's possible to get three echo planar images per slice at TEs of around 15, 40 and 60 ms. The multiple echoes can then be used to characterize BOLD from non-BOLD signal variations, etc.

The immediate problem with this scheme is that the per slice acquisition time is still a lot longer than for normal EPI, meaning less brain coverage. The suggestion has been to use MB/SMS to regain speed in the slice dimension. This results in the combination of MB/SMS in the slice dimension and GRAPPA/SENSE in-plane, thereby complicating the reconstruction, possibly (probably) amplifying artifacts, enhancing motion sensitivity, etc. If we could eliminate the in-plane parallel imaging and do all the acceleration through MB/SMS then that would possibly reduce some of the artifact amplification, might simplify (slightly) the necessary reference data, etc.

A different approach? 

Partial Fourier versus GRAPPA for increasing EPI slice coverage

This is the final post in a short series concerning partial Fourier EPI for fMRI. The previous post showed how partial Fourier phase encoding can accelerate the slice acquisition rate for EPI. It is possible, in principle, to omit as much as half the phase encode data, but for practical reasons the omission is generally limited to around 25% before image artifacts - mainly enhanced regional dropout - make the speed gain too costly for fMRI use. Omitting 25% of the phase encode sampling allows a slice rate acceleration of up to about 20%, depending on whether the early or the late echoes are omitted and whether other timing parameters, most notably the TE, are changed in concert.

But what other options do you have for gaining approximately 20% more slices in a fixed TR? A common tactic for reducing the amount of phase-encoded data is to use an in-plane parallel imaging method such as SENSE or GRAPPA. Now, I've written previously about the motion sensitivity of parallel imaging methods for EPI, in particular the motion sensitivity of GRAPPA-EPI, which is the preferred parallel imaging method on a Siemens scanner. (See posts here, here and here.) In short, the requirement to obtain a basis set of spatial information - that is, a map of the receive coil sensitivities for SENSE and a set of so-called auto-calibration scan (ACS) data for GRAPPA - means that any motion that occurs between the basis set and the current volume of (accelerated) EPI data is likely to cause some degree of mismatch that will result in artifacts. Precisely how and where the artifacts will appear, their intensity, etc. will depend on the type of motion that occurs, whether the subject's head returns to the initial location, and so on. Still, it behooves us to check whether parallel imaging might be a better option for accelerating slice coverage than partial Fourier.


Deciding what to compare

Disclaimer: As always with these throwaway comparisons, use what you see here as a starting point for thinking about your options and perhaps determining your own set of pilot experiments. It is not the final word on either partial Fourier or GRAPPA! It is just one worked example.

Okay, so what should we look at? In selecting 6/8ths partial Fourier it appears that we can get about 15-20% more slices for a fixed TR. It turns out that this gain is comparable to using GRAPPA with R=2 acceleration with the same TE. To keep things manageable - a five-way comparison is a sod to illustrate - I am going to drop the low-resolution 64x48 full Fourier EPI that featured in the last post in favor of the R=2 GRAPPA-EPI that we're now interested in. For the sake of this comparison I'm assuming that we have decided to go with either pF-EPI or GRAPPA, but you should note that the 64x48 full Fourier EPI remains an option for you in practice. (Download all the data here to perform for your own comparisons!)

I will retain the original 64x64 full Fourier EPI as our "gold standard" for image quality as well as the two pF-EPI variants, yielding a new four-way comparison: 64x64 full Fourier EPI, 6/8pF(early), 6/8pF(late), and GRAPPA with R=2. Partial Fourier nomenclature is as used previously. All parameters except the specific phase encode sampling schemes were held constant. Data was collected on a Siemens TIM/Trio with 12-channel head coil, TR = 2000 ms, TE = 22 ms, FOV = 224 mm x 224 mm, slice thickness = 3 mm, inter-slice gap = 0.3 mm, echo spacing = 0.5 ms, bandwidth = 2232 Hz/pixel, flip angle = 70 deg. Each EPI was reconstructed as a 64x64 matrix however much actual k-space was acquired. Partial Fourier schemes used zero filling prior to 2D FT. GRAPPA reconstruction was performed on the scanner with the default vendor reconstruction program. (Siemens users, see Note 1.)

Using partial Fourier EPI for fMRI

Back in August I did a post on the experimental consequences of using partial Fourier for EPI. (An earlier post, PFUFA Part Fourteen introduces partial Fourier EPI.) The main point of that post was to demonstrate how, with all other parameters fixed, there are two principal effects on an EPI obtained with partial Fourier (pF) compared to using full phase encoding: global image smoothing, and regionally enhanced signal dropout. (See Note 1.)

In this post I want to look a little more closely at how pF-EPI works in practice, on a brain, with fMRI as the intended application, and to consider what other parameter options we have once we select pF over full k-space. I'll do two sets of comparisons. In the first comparison all parameters except the phase encoding k-space fraction will be fixed so that we can again consider the first stage consequences of using pF. In the second comparison each pF-EPI scheme will be optimized in a "maximum performance" test. The former is an apples to apples comparison, with essentially one variable changing at a time, whereas the latter is how you would ordinarily want to consider the pF options available to you.


Why might we want to consider partial Fourier EPI for fMRI anyway?

If we assume a typical in-plane matrix of 64 x 64 pixels, an echo spacing (the time for each phase-encoded gradient echo in the train, as explained in PFUFA Part Twelve) of 0.5 ms and a TE of 30 ms for BOLD contrast then it takes approximately 61 ms to acquire each EPI slice. (See Note 2 for the details.) The immediate consequence should be obvious: at 61 ms per slice we will be limited to 32 slices in a TR of 2000 ms. If the slice thickness is 3 mm then the total brain coverage in the slice dimension will be ~106 mm, assuming a 10% nominal inter-slice gap (i.e. 32 x 3.3 mm slices). With axial slices we aren't going to be able to cover the entire adult brain. We will have to omit either the top of parietal lobes or the bottom of the temporal lobes, midbrain, OFC and cerebellum. Judicious tilting might be able to capture all of the regions of primary interest to you, but we either need to reduce the time taken per slice or increase the TR to cover the entire brain.

Partial Fourier is one way to reduce the time spent acquiring each EPI slice. There are two basic ways to approach it: eliminate either the early echoes or the late echoes in the echo train, as described at the end of PFUFA: Part Fourteen. Eliminating the early echoes doesn't, by itself, save any time at all. Only if the TE is reduced in concert is there any time saving. But omitting the late echoes will mean that we complete the data acquisition for the current slice earlier than we would for full Fourier sampling, hence there is some intrinsic speed benefit. I'll come back to the time savings and their consequences later on. Let's first look at what happens when we enable partial Fourier without changing anything else.

12-channel versus 32-channel head coils for fMRI

At last month's Human Brain Mapping conference in Seattle, a poster by Harvard scientists Stephanie McMains and Ross Mair (poster 3412) showed yet more evidence that the benefits of a 32-channel coil for fMRI at 3 T aren't immediately obvious. Previous work by Kaza, Klose and Lotze in 2011 (doi: 10.1002/jmri.22614) had suggested that the benefits were regional, with cortical areas benefiting from the additional signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) whereas the standard 12-channel coil was superior for fMRI of deeper structures such as thalamus and cerebellum. The latest work by McMains and Mair confirms an earlier report from Li, Wang and Wang (ISMRM 17th Annual Meeting, 2009. Abstract #1614) that showed spatial resolution also affects the benefit, if any. In a nutshell, if a typical voxel resolution of 3 mm is used then the 32-channel coil provides no benefit over a 12-channel coil. The 32-channel coil was best only when resolution was pushed to 2 mm, thereby pushing the SNR down towards the thermal noise limit, or when using high acceleration, e.g. GRAPPA with acceleration, R > 2.

What's going on? In the first instance we need to think about the regimes that limit fMRI at different spatial resolutions. In the absence of subject motion and physiologic noise, the SNR of an EPI voxel will tend towards a thermal noise-limiting regime as it gets smaller. Let's assume a fairly typical SNR of 60 for a voxel that has dimensions 3.5x3.5x3.5 mm^3, as detected by a 12-channel head coil at 3 T. If we shrink the voxel to 3x3x3 mm^3 the SNR will decrease by ~27/43, to about 38, while if we shrink to 2x2x2 mm^3 the SNR will decrease to about 11. (Here I am assuming that all factors affecting N are invariant to resolution while S scales with voxel volume, which is sufficient for this discussion.) If we decrease the voxels to 1.5x1.5x1.5 mm^3 the SNR decreases to below five. The SNR is barely above one if we push all the way to 1x1x1 mm^3 resolution, which is why you don't often see fMRI resolution better than 2 mm at 3 T. Thus, if high spatial resolution is the goal then one needs to boost the SNR well beyond what we started of with to achieve a reasonable image. Hence the move to larger phased-array receive coils.

So that's the situation when the thermal noise is limiting. This is generally the case for anatomical MRI, but does it apply to fMRI? If something else is limiting - either physiologic noise or subject motion - then increasing the raw SNR may not help as expected. In fMRI we are generally less concerned with true (white) thermal noise than we are with erroneous modulation of our signal. It's not noise so much as it is signal changes of no interest. For this reason, Gonzalez-Castillo et al. (doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.020) recently proposed using a very low flip angle in order to minimize physiologic noise while leaving functional signal changes unchanged.

From ISMRM e-poster 3352, available as a PDF via this link.

What if we can't even attain the physiologic noise-limiting regime? It's quite possible to be in a subject motion-limiting regime, as anyone who has run an fMRI experiment can attest. In that case, the use of a high dimensional array coil (of 32 channels, say) could actually impose a higher motion sensitivity on the time series than it would have had were it detected by a smaller array coil (of 12 channels, say), due to the greater receive field heterogeneity of the 32-channel coil. This was something a colleague and I considered last year, in an arXiv paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.3633) and accompanying blog post. In an e-poster at this year's ISMRM Annual Meeting (abstract #3352; a PDF of the slides is available via this Dropbox link) we simulated the effects of motion on temporal SNR (tSNR), as well as the potential for spurious correlations in resting-state fMRI, when using a 32-channel coil. In doing these simulations we assumed perfect motion correction yet there were still drastic effects, as the above figure illustrates.

Whether the equivocal benefits of a 32-channel coil for routine fMRI (that is, using 3-ish mm voxels) are due to enhanced motion sensitivity, higher physiologic noise or some other factor I'm not in a position to say with any certainty. My colleagues and I, and others, are investigating ways that we might reduce the effects of receive field contrast on motion correction. The use of a prescan normalization is one idea that might help, at least a bit. The process has many assumptions and potential flaws, but it may offer the prospect of getting back some of what might be lost courtesy of the enhanced motion sensitivity. We simply don't know yet. The bigger problem, however, seems to be that a heterogeneous receive field contrast will impart motion sensitivity on a time series even if motion correction were perfect. Strong receive field heterogeneity, of the sort exhibited by a 32-channel head coil, is a killer if the subject moves.

Unless you are attempting to use highly accelerated parallel imaging (in particular the multiband sequences) and/or pushing your voxel size towards 2 mm, then, you're almost certainly better off sticking with the 12-channel coil as far as fMRI performance is concerned. Other scans, in particular anatomical scans and perhaps some diffusion-weighted scans, may benefit from larger array coils (because these scans may be in the thermal noise-limiting regime), but each application will need to be verified independently.

We're arXiving! (Another post on GRAPPA.)

In another move to accelerate the development of methods for neuroimaging applications, some colleagues and I recently decided to abandon a second attempt to publish a paper in traditional journals and opted for the immediacy of arXiv instead. (Damn, it feels good to be free of reviewers claiming "What problem? I don't see why a solution is even needed?" Whatever.) We've got another paper coming out on arXiv in a few days, too, although in this case we are exploring the possibility of a simultaneous submission to IEEE Trans Med Physics since it allows such tactics, and my colleagues in "real" physics do this all the time. Whether or not the IEEE submission happens the material will be out there in the world, naked, for all to view and poke at. Isn't this how science is supposed to work? I love it!

Anyway, for today, here's the skinny on the arXiv submission from August (which I inadvertently forgot to hawk on this blog even after tweeting it):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0972

(Get a PDF fo' free via the link.)

Simultaneous Reduction of Two Common Autocalibration Errors in GRAPPA EPI Time Series Data

 

D. Sheltraw, B. Inglis, V. Deshpande, M. Trumpis *

(Submitted on 5 Aug 2012)

The GRAPPA (GeneRalized Autocalibrating Partially Parallel Acquisitions) method of parallel MRI makes use of an autocalibration scan (ACS) to determine a set of synthesis coefficients to be used in the image reconstruction. For EPI time series the ACS data is usually acquired once prior to the time series. In this case the interleaved R-shot EPI trajectory, where R is the GRAPPA reduction factor, offers advantages which we justify from a theoretical and experimental perspective. Unfortunately, interleaved R-shot ACS can be corrupted due to perturbations to the signal (such as direct and indirect motion effects) occurring between the shots, and these perturbations may lead to artifacts in GRAPPA-reconstructed images. Consequently we also present a method of acquiring interleaved ACS data in a manner which can reduce the effects of inter-shot signal perturbations. This method makes use of the phase correction data, conveniently a part of many standard EPI sequences, to assess the signal perturbations between the segments of R-shot EPI ACS scans. The phase correction scans serve as navigator echoes, or more accurately a perturbation-sensitive signal, to which a root-mean-square deviation perturbation metric is applied for the determination of the best available complete ACS data set among multiple complete sets of ACS data acquired prior to the EPI time series. This best set (assumed to be that with the smallest valued perturbation metric) is used in the GRAPPA autocalibration algorithm, thereby permitting considerable improvement in both image quality and temporal signal-to-noise ratio of the subsequent EPI time series at the expense of a small increase in overall acquisition time.

* For some strange arXiv technical reason the author list is reordered from that which appears (correctly) on the PDF. C'est la vie.

GRAPPA and multi-band imaging. And motion. Again.

 

It's come to my attention that some of the latest accelerated (aka multiplexed) EPI sequences are now being made available to some sites with vendor/collaborative research agreements, a move that should catalyze their verification, testing and eventual application for neuroscience. The distribution of these pulse sequences to the wider world is great news! The potential is considerable! However, those wanting to conduct neuroscience experiments today with these zippy new tools should bear in mind the not inconsiderable risks. I want to warn you to think very carefully before taking the plunge.

Today's accelerated EPI sequences combine techniques such as multi-band (MB) acquisition with simultaneous echo refocusing (SER) and/or GRAPPA (1,2). In previous posts I've highlighted the increased motion sensitivity of parallel imaging methods such as GRAPPA. The MB family of methods also require "reference scan data" in order to reconstruct the time series images, and as such they are inherently more motion-sensitive than your plain vanilla single-shot EPI. Indeed, similar principles are used to reconstruct MB images as for GRAPPA, and the basic motion sensitivities are the same, i.e. motion during the reference data acquisitions will contaminate all images in a subsequent time series, while motion after the reference data but during the (accelerated) time series will lead to mismatches and spatial artifacts that will degrade temporal stability. In short, using these accelerated sequences is akin to sharpening the motion sensitivity profile of your experiment, and you will need to ensure a high degree of subject compliance to get good data.


Plan, then scan.

Now, I'm not suggesting you dismiss out of hand these sequences for your research. I am suggesting that you apply a lot of forethought, taking the time to consider several important factors. I've written before about evaluating pulse sequences that are new (or new to you). Your first task is to determine whether you even need a fancy, partly validated, highly risky pulse sequence to answer your neuroscience question. If the answer isn't a resounding "yes," why take the risk? Next, you should ask yourself how the pulse sequence should be set up to provide the optimum data. For instance, do you know which slice direction is best for minimizing motion sensitivity and/or receive field bias (g-factor) for the multi-band sequence? And do you know which RF coil to use, and why? If you can't establish your experimental setup based on sound principles that's a suggestion you either don't have the expertise yourself or you aren't collaborating with someone with the requisite expertise. (Me? I could guess, but that's about it! Without doing a validation study of my own I'd be winging it. Which is kinda my point!)

Please don't just go download and use the latest and greatest technique because it's new and cool. I've seen this movie before, and ninety nine times out of a hundred it ends in tears. Please put some justification and logic into your choices before you go and spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars finding yet another way that motion can confound an fMRI experiment. Eyes wide open!

__________________

References:

1.  S Moeller, et al. "Multiband multislice GE-EPI at 7 tesla, with 16-fold acceleration using partial parallel imaging with application to high spatial and temporal whole-brain fMRI." Magn. Reson. Med. 63, 1144-53 (2009).

2.  DA Feinberg, et al. "Multiplexed echo planar imaging for sub-second whole brain fMRI and fast diffusion imaging." PLoS ONE 5(12), e15710 (2010).

GRAPPA: another warning about motion sensitivity

 
I wrote a post in May last year to highlight the enhanced motion sensitivity of GRAPPA-EPI compared to single-shot EPI for fMRI. Paul Mullins and I had also discussed the use of GRAPPA for resting-state fMRI in the Comments of an earlier post. The literature is still fairly quiet on the adverse effects of GRAPPA for fMRI although, as I noted in the May post, there are one or two reports of reduced fMRI sensitivity when using parallel imaging, some of which might be attributable to motion (whether it was diagnosed as motion or not in the published work).

In the May, 2011 post I explained the two types of motion sensitivity that plague GRAPPA in its usual incarnation for EPI time series acquisitions. The first type - motion contamination of the auto-calibration scans (ACS) - might be mitigated by vigilance and a suitably resilient task script, e.g. one that uses plenty of null events at the start of the acquisition, before the first real stimulus is presented, to give the operator sufficient time to evaluate the images being generated with the current ACS and decide whether or not to stop and start over. This approach is no guarantee that motion won't have contaminated the ACS, but simple tactics like this can help avoid the worst effects of motion during the start of the run.

The second type of motion is that which happens after the ACS and during the (under-sampled) time series itself. This problem is one of mismatch. Displacement of the head from its position during the ACS acquisition can lead to spatial errors in the current image volume. Thus, whilst attaining motion-free ACS might be considered essential for fMRI, maintaining proper matching of the ACS to the under-sampled time series is also important. The bigger the mismatch the more likely there will be a penalty in statistical power for the time series.

In this post I want to tackle the issue of non-head motion in the scanner, and its effects on GRAPPA-EPI images. This investigation was motivated by one of my users who reported seeing occasional "banding" in a study that had used GRAPPA-EPI. The traditional evaluation of head motion suggested that the subjects weren't moving very much, so I started looking into other possible instabilities. I was quite surprised just how sensitive GRAPPA-EPI can be to small perturbations, as you will shortly see.


A quick review of some brain data

Let's begin by looking at one of the problem GRAPPA-EPI data sets from a human subject. The acquisition specifics are as follows: 12-channel head RF coil on a Siemens Trio/TIM scanner, GRAPPA with R = 2, reconstructed matrix = 96x96, FOV = 224x224 mm, slice thickness = 3 mm, 10% gap, interleaved sagittal slices, flip angle = 90 deg, TR/TE=2000/26 ms, echo spacing = 0.8 ms, readout bandwidth = 1408 Hz/pixel.

Here is a cine-loop through the raw data:

Using GRAPPA for fMRI in the presence of subject motion

I've received a few queries about my opinions on the use of GRAPPA for EPI time series, opinions which have been mentioned in passing in earlier posts. In my user training guide/FAQ are some sections that deal with GRAPPA features and performance, but I didn't include an in-depth illustration of the artifacts or the motion sensitivity. So, to help you make a decision on whether GRAPPA is something you should be using in your fMRI experiments, I'm going to post here a few more images and some movies to highlight the problems that can arise in the presence of significant head motion. I'll focus on R=2 accelerated EPI, but the principles hold for higher acceleration factors as well.

Whether or not you ultimately select GRAPPA for your experiment, it is important to make your determination objectively, taking into account your experimental needs, the benefits of the method, its failure modes and prior studies you can rely on for validation. (See "Beware of physicists bearing gifts!")

** Please note that the following information pertains to the GRAPPA implementation available as product on the Siemens Trio/TIM platform with VB15 software. If you have a different Siemens platform or a different vendor's scanner there may be significant differences in the implementation. **

A brief review of the GRAPPA method

If you don't have even a rudimentary understanding of parallel imaging (PI) generally or the GRAPPA method specifically, I would encourage you to stop reading this post now and go read at least one of these articles: Larkman & Nunes (2007) or Blaimer et al. (2004). Then come back when you're ready to proceed with a speedy review.