By Topic

Spatial distribution of high-frequency electromagnetic energy in human head during MRI: numerical results and measurements

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$33 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

4 Author(s)

Finite Element Method (FEM) using 26-node isoparametric finite elements was applied for modeling saddleshaped head coils used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MM) generating linearly polarized radiofrequency (RF) pulses at 64 MHz. The human head was modeled from MR sciplls of a volunteer and additional information were taken from Atlas of Sectional Human Anatomy. The physical dimensions of the head coil and the head permit a calculation of the outside magnetic field by a quasistatic approach. Of course, a full-wave approach was applied within the head. Values of specific energy—specific absorption (SA)— as well as of specific power—specific absorption rate (SAR)—were calculated by the method, simulating the real exposure conditions during MRI. Although the results of the used numerical method were compared previously to the results of the analytical solution with homogeneous sphere and to the results of RF measurements on heterogeneous phantom, a comparison between the numerical results of the modeled~human head and in vivo measurements performed on the human head of the volunteer was made once more. Since the results are in excellent agreement, they argue for the correctness of the numerical method. The "worst-case" temperature elevations δθ of the "hot-spots" were calculated, as well. Finally, the results of SA, SAR, and δθ are compared to the existing recommendations.

Published in:

IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering  (Volume:43 ,  Issue: 1 )