SMASH and SENSE: experimental and numerical comparisons.
Three parallel-imaging methods were implemented and compared in terms of artifact and noise content: original SMASH, Cartesian SENSE, and an extremely simple method called here the "scissors method." These methods represent very different approaches to the parallel-imaging problem. The experimental and numerical comparisons presented here aim at shedding light on the whole spectrum of parallel-imaging methods, not just the three methods actually implemented. In our results, SMASH images had an artifact level significantly higher than SENSE images for all acceleration factors. The SNR in SENSE images was nearly optimal at low acceleration factors. As acceleration was increased, the noise content in SENSE images eventually sharply departed from optimal values, while the artifact content remained low.
Madore
B
B
Lucas MRS Center, Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. bruno@bwh.harvard.edu
Pelc
N J
NJ
D016477:Artifacts; D003198:Computer Simulation; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000295:instrumentation*; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000295:instrumentation*; D009716:Numerical Analysis, Computer-Assisted; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D012016:Reference Values; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013131:Spine / Q000033:anatomy & histology*