↓ Skip to main content

Signal-to-noise ratio evaluation of magnetic resonance images in the presence of an ultrasonic motor

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Signal-to-noise ratio evaluation of magnetic resonance images in the presence of an ultrasonic motor
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12938-017-0331-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peyman Shokrollahi, James M. Drake, Andrew A. Goldenberg

Abstract

Safe robot-assisted intervention using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance requires the precise control of assistive devices, and most currently available tools are rarely MRI-compatible. To obtain high precision, it is necessary to characterize and develop existing MRI-safe actuators for use in a high magnetic field (≥3 T). Although an ultrasonic motor (USM) is considered to be an MRI-safe actuator, and can be used in the vicinity of a high field scanner, its presence interferes with MR images. Although an MR image provides valuable information regarding the pathology of a patient's body, noise, generally of a granular type, decreases the quality of the image and jeopardizes the true evaluation of any existing pathological issues. An eddy current induced in the conductor material of the motor structure can be a source of noise when the motor is close to the isocenter of the image. We aimed to assess the effects of a USM on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of MR images in a 3-T scanner. The SNR was compared for four image sequences in transverse directions for three orientations of the motor (x, y, and z) when the motor was in the "off" state. The SNR was evaluated to assess three artifact reduction methods used to minimize the motor-induced artifacts. The SNR had a range of 5-10 dB for slices close to the motor in the x and y orientations, and increased to 15-20 dB for slices far from the motor. Averaging the SNR for slices in all cases gave an SNR loss of about 10 dB. The maximum SNR was measured in the z orientation. In this case, the SNR loss was almost the same as that of other motor orientations, approximately 10 dB, but with a higher range, approximately 20-40 dB. The selection of certain scanning parameters is necessary for reducing motor-generated artifacts. These parameters include slice selection and bandwidth. In developing any MRI-compatible assisted device actuated by a USM, this study recommends the use of an approximately 3-mm slice thickness with minimum bandwidth to achieve optimized SNR values when a USM is operating close to (within approximately 40 mm) the region being imaged. The SNR can be further enhanced by increasing the number of signal averages, but this is achieved only at the cost of increased scan duration.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Unspecified 2 4%
Researcher 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 31 62%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Unspecified 2 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 31 62%
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 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#18,541,268
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#564
of 824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,914
of 308,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 824 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 308,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.