English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Regional impact of field strength on voxel-based morphometry results

MPS-Authors
There are no MPG-Authors available
External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Tardif, C., Collins, D. L., & Pike, G. B. (2010). Regional impact of field strength on voxel-based morphometry results. Human Brain Mapping, 31(7), 943-957. doi:10.1002/hbm.20908.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-799E-4
Abstract
The objective of this study was to characterize the sensitivity of voxel-based morphometry (VBM) results to choice field strength. We chose to investigate the two most widespread acquisition sequences for VBM, FLASH and MP-RAGE, at 1.5 and 3 T. We first evaluated image quality of the four acquisition protocols in terms of SNR and image uniformity. We then performed a VBM study on eight subjects scanned twice using the four protocols to evaluate differences in grey matter (GM) density and corresponding scan-rescan variability, and a power analysis for each protocol in the context a longitudinal and cross-sectional VBM study. As expected, the SNR increased significantly at 3 T for both FLASH and MP-RAGE. Image non-uniformity increased as well, in particular for MP-RAGE. The differences in CNR and contrast non-uniformity cause regional biases between protocols in the VBM results, in particular between sequences at 3 T. The power analysis results show an overall decrease in the number of subjects required in a longitudinal study to detect a difference in GM density at 3 T for MP-RAGE, but an increase for FLASH. The number of subjects required in a cross-sectional VBM study is higher at 3 T for both sequences. Our results show that each protocol has a distinct regional sensitivity pattern to morphometric change, which goes against the classical view of VBM as an unbiased whole brain analysis technique, complicates the combination of data within a VBM study and the direct comparison of VBM studies based on different protocols.