Functional MR Imaging on an Open 1T MR Imaging System: Exploiting the Advantages of an Open MR Imaging System for Functional MR Imaging

References

1. ↵
   1. Streitparth F,
   2. Walter T,
   3. Wonneberger U,
   4. et al

   . Image-guided spinal injection procedures in open high-field MRI with vertical field orientation: feasibility and technical features. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 395–403

   CrossRefPubMed
2. ↵
   1. Uppot RN,
   2. Sahani DV,
   3. Hahn PF,
   4. et al

   . Impact of obesity on medical imaging and image-guided intervention. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 433–40

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. ↵
   1. Uppot RN,
   2. Sahani DV,
   3. Hahn PF,
   4. et al

   . Effect of obesity on image quality: fifteen-year longitudinal study for evaluation of dictated radiology reports. Radiology 2006; 240: 435–39

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. ↵
   1. Gati JS,
   2. Menon RS,
   3. Ugurbil K,
   4. et al

   . Experimental determination of the BOLD field strength dependence in vessels and tissue. Magn Reson Med 1997; 38: 296–302

   PubMedWeb of Science
5. ↵
   1. Okada T,
   2. Yamada H,
   3. Ito H,
   4. et al

   . Magnetic field strength increase yields significantly greater contrast-to-noise ratio increase: measured using BOLD contrast in the primary visual area. Acad Radiol 2005; 12: 142–47

   CrossRefPubMed
6. ↵
   1. Papke K,
   2. Hellmann T,
   3. Renger B,
   4. et al

   . Clinical applications of functional MRI at 1.0 T: motor and language studies in healthy subjects and patients. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 211–20

   CrossRefPubMed
7. ↵
   1. Lundervold A,
   2. Ersland L,
   3. Gjesdal KI,
   4. et al

   . Functional magnetic resonance imaging of primary visual processing using a 1.0 Tesla scanner. Int J Neurosci 1995; 81: 151–68

   CrossRefPubMed
8. ↵
   1. van der Kallen BF,
   2. van Erning LJ,
   3. van Zuijlen MW,
   4. et al

   . Activation of the sensorimotor cortex at 1.0 T: comparison of echo-planar and gradient-echo imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998; 19: 1099–104

   Abstract
9. ↵
   1. Boghi A,
   2. Rampado O,
   3. Bergui M,
   4. et al

   . Functional MR study of a motor task and the tower of London task at 1.0 T. Neuroradiology 2006; 48: 763–71

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. ↵
    1. Bandettini PA,
    2. Wong EC,
    3. Jesmanowicz A,
    4. et al

    . Spin-echo and gradient-echo EPI of human brain activation using BOLD contrast: a comparative study at 1.5 T. NMR Biomed 1994; 7: 12–20

    PubMedWeb of Science
11. ↵
    1. Fera F,
    2. Yongbi MN,
    3. van GP,
    4. et al

    . 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

    CrossRefPubMed
12. ↵
    1. Meindl T,
    2. Born C,
    3. Britsch S,
    4. et al

    . Functional BOLD MRI: comparison of different field strengths in a motor task. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1102–13

    CrossRefPubMed
13. ↵
    1. van der Zwaag W,
    2. Francis S,
    3. Head K,
    4. et al

    . fMRI at 1.5, 3 and 7 T: characterising BOLD signal changes. Neuroimage 2009; 47: 1425–34; Epub 2009 May 14

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. ↵
    1. Weiskopf N,
    2. Hutton C,
    3. Josephs O,
    4. et al

    . Optimized EPI for fMRI studies of the orbitofrontal cortex: compensation of susceptibility-induced gradients in the readout direction. MAGMA 2007; 20: 39–49

    CrossRefPubMed
15. ↵
    1. McGonigle DJ,
    2. Howseman AM,
    3. Athwal BS,
    4. et al

    . Variability in fMRI: an examination of intersession differences. Neuroimage 2000; 11: 708–34

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
16. ↵
    1. Smith SM,
    2. Beckmann CF,
    3. Ramnani N,
    4. et al

    . Variability in fMRI: a re-examination of inter-session differences. Hum Brain Mapp 2005; 24: 248–57

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science