Paper detail

Influence of scanning plane on Human Spinal Cord functional Magnetic Resonance echo planar imaging

BACKGROUND: Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is based on the Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent contrast and has been exploited for the indirect study of the neuronal activity within both the brain and the spinal cord. However, the interpretation of spinal cord fMRI (scfMRI) is still controversial and its diffusion is rather limited because of technical limitations. Overcoming these limitations would have a beneficial effect for the assessment and follow-up of spinal injuries and neurodegenerative diseases. PURPOSE: This study was aimed at systematically verify whether sagittal scanning in scfMRI using EPI readout is a viable alternative to the more common axial scanning, and at optimizing a pipeline for EPI-based scfMRI data analysis, based on Spinal Cord Toolbox (SCT). METHODS: Forty-five healthy subjects underwent MRI acquisition in a Philips Achieva 3T MRI scanner. T2*-weighted fMRI data were acquired using a GE-EPI sequence along sagittal and axial planes during an isometric motor task. Differences on benchmarks were assessed via paired two-sample t-test at p=0.05. RESULTS: We investigated the impact of the acquisition strategy by means of various metrics such as Temporal Signal to Noise Ratio (tSNR), Dice Coefficient to assess geometric distortions, Reproducibility and Sensitivity. tSNR was higher in axial than in sagittal scans, as well as reproducibility within the whole cord mask (t=7.4, p<0.01) and within the GM mask (t=4.2, p<0.01). The other benchmarks, associated with distortion and functional response, showed no difference between images obtained along the axial and sagittal planes. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative metrics of data quality suggest that axial scanning would be the optimal choice. We conclude that axial acquisition is advantageous specially to mitigate the effects of physiological noise and to minimize inter-subject variance.

preprint2024arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access14 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.