↓ Skip to main content

Sub-millimeter T2 weighted fMRI at 7 T: comparison of 3D-GRASE and 2D SE-EPI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sub-millimeter T2 weighted fMRI at 7 T: comparison of 3D-GRASE and 2D SE-EPI
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00163
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valentin G. Kemper, Federico De Martino, An T. Vu, Benedikt A. Poser, David A. Feinberg, Rainer Goebel, Essa Yacoub

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) allows studying human brain function non-invasively up to the spatial resolution of cortical columns and layers. Most fMRI acquisitions rely on the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) contrast employing T(*) 2 weighted 2D multi-slice echo-planar imaging (EPI). At ultra-high magnetic field (i.e., 7 T and above), it has been shown experimentally and by simulation, that T2 weighted acquisitions yield a signal that is spatially more specific to the site of neuronal activity at the cost of functional sensitivity. This study compared two T2 weighted imaging sequences, inner-volume 3D Gradient-and-Spin-Echo (3D-GRASE) and 2D Spin-Echo EPI (SE-EPI), with evaluation of their imaging point-spread function (PSF), functional specificity, and functional sensitivity at sub-millimeter resolution. Simulations and measurements of the imaging PSF revealed that the strongest anisotropic blurring in 3D-GRASE (along the second phase-encoding direction) was about 60% higher than the strongest anisotropic blurring in 2D SE-EPI (along the phase-encoding direction). In a visual paradigm, the BOLD sensitivity of 3D-GRASE was found to be superior due to its higher temporal signal-to-noise ratio (tSNR). High resolution cortical depth profiles suggested that the contrast mechanisms are similar between the two sequences, however, 2D SE-EPI had a higher surface bias owing to the higher T(*) 2 contribution of the longer in-plane EPI echo-train for full field of view compared to the reduced field of view of zoomed 3D-GRASE.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 26%
Researcher 31 26%
Student > Master 17 14%
Professor 6 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 29 24%
Engineering 15 13%
Physics and Astronomy 13 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 10%
Psychology 9 8%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 32 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#10,135
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,491
of 279,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#114
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.