Clinical Imaging
Volume 35, Issue 3 , Pages 236-241 , May 2011

Functional bold MRI: advantages of the 3 T vs. the 1.5 T

  • Reyes García-Eulate

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neuroradiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra and Medical School, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Avenida Pio XII 36, Pamplona 31008, Spain. Tel.: +34 948255400; fax: +34 948 296500.
    • ,
  • David García-García

      Affiliations

    • Neuroscience Division, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Clínica Universidad de Navarra and Medical School, CIMA, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
    • Centro Investigación Biomedica en Red Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED; Spanish Government), Madrid, Spain
    • ,
  • Pablo D. Dominguez

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neuroradiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra and Medical School, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
    • ,
  • Jose J. Noguera

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neuroradiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra and Medical School, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
    • ,
  • Esther De Luis

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neuroradiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra and Medical School, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
    • ,
  • María C. Rodriguez-Oroz

      Affiliations

    • Neuroscience Division, Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Clínica Universidad de Navarra and Medical School, CIMA, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
    • Centro Investigación Biomedica en Red Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED; Spanish Government), Madrid, Spain
    • ,
  • Jose L. Zubieta

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neuroradiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra and Medical School, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Received 20 March 2010 ,Accepted 1 May 2010.

References 

  1. Ogawa S, Lee TM, Kay AR, Tank DW. Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87:9868–9872
  2. Ogawa S, Tank DW, Menon RS, et al. Intrinsic signal changes accompanying sensory stimulation: functional brain mapping with magnetic resonance imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;89:5951–5955
  3. Sunaert S. Presurgical planning for tumor resectioning. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;23:887–905
  4. Frayne R, Goodyear BG, Dickhoff P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla challenges and advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:385–402
  5. Voss HU, Zevin JD, McCadlliss BD, Functional MR. Imaging at 3.0 Tesla versus 1.5 T: a practical review. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2006;16:285–297
  6. Fisel CR, Ackerman JL, Garrido L, et al. MR contrast due to microscopically heterogeneous magnetic susceptibility: numerical simulations and applications to cerebral physiology. Magn Reson Med. 1991;17:336–347
  7. Gati JS, Menon RS, Ugurbil K, Rutt BK. Experimental determination of the BOLD field strength dependence in vessels and tissue. Magn Reson Med. 1997;38:296–302
  8. Meindl T, Born C, Britsch S, Reiser M, Schoenberg S. Functional BOLD MRI: comparison of different field strengths in a motor task. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1102–1113
  9. Turner R, Jezzard P, Wen H, et al. Functional mapping of the human visual cortex at 4.0 and 1.5 tesla using deoxygenation contrast EPI. Magn Reson Med. 1993;29:277–279
  10. Yang Y, Wen H, Mattay VS, Balaban RS, Frank JA, Duyn JH. Comparison of 3D BOLD functional MRI with spiral acquisition at 1.5 and 4.0 T. Neuroimage. 1999;9:446–451
  11. Tieleman A, Vandemaele P, Seurnick R, Deblaere K, Achten E. Comparison between functional magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: effect of increased field strength on 4 paradigms used during presurgical work-up. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:130–138
  12. Hoenig K, Kuhl CK, Scheef L. Functional 3.0-T MR assessment of higher cognitive function: are there advantages over 1.5-T imaging?. Radiology. 2005;234:860–868
  13. Fera F, Yongbi MN, van Gelderen P, Frank JA, Mattay VS, Duyn JH. EPI-BOLD fMRI of human motor cortex at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: sensitivity dependence on echo time and acquisition bandwidth. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;19:19–26
  14. Krasnow B, Tamm L, Greicius MD, et al. Comparison of fMRI activation at 3 and 1.5 T during perceptual, cognitive, and affective processing. NeuroImage. 2003;18:813–826
  15. Krüger G, Kastrup A, Glover GH. Neuroimaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of oxygenation-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45:595–604
  16. Henson R, Büchel C, Josephs O, Friston K. The slice-timing problem in event-related fMRI (abstr). NeuroImage. 1999;6:S125
  17. Josephs O, Henson R. Event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging: modelling, inference and optimization. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1999;354:1215–1228
  18. Friston KJ, Ashburner J, Frith CD, Poline JB, Heather JD, Frackowiak RS. Spatial registration and normalization of images. Hum Brain Mapp. 1995;3:165–189
  19. Friston KJ, Holmes AP, Worsley KJ, Poline JP, Frith CD, Frackowiak RS. Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Hum Brain Mapp. 1995;2:189–210
  20. Talairach J, Tournoux P. Coplanar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain.. New York (NY): Thieme; 1988;

PII: S0899-7071(10)00149-X

doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2010.07.003

Clinical Imaging
Volume 35, Issue 3 , Pages 236-241 , May 2011

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution