Clinical Assessment of Standard and Generalized Autocalibrating Partially Parallel Acquisition Diffusion Imaging: Effects of Reduction Factor and Spatial Resolution

J.B. Andre; G. Zaharchuk; N.J. Fischbein; M. Augustin; S. Skare; M. Straka; J. Rosenberg; M.G. Lansberg; S. Kemp; C.A.C. Wijman; G.W. Albers; N.E. Schwartz; R. Bammer

doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2980

Supplemental Online Table and Figures

Files in this Data Supplement:

Online Table and Figures (PDF) -

Online Table: Patient demographics

Online Figure 1: Effect of matrix size and reduction factor upon reader assessment of spatial resolution. (128, R1 — matrix size of 128 x 128, and reduction factor of 1.) Nominal values 1�5 represent reader grading and assessment of spatial resolution compared with the standard DWI SS-EPI phase-encoding scheme at 1.5T, represented by percentage of total assigned values.

Online Figure 2: Effect of matrix size and reduction factor upon reader assessment of overall susceptibility artifact. (128, R1 — matrix size of 128 x 128, and reduction factor of 1.) Nominal values 1�5 represent reader grading and assessment of susceptibility artifact compared with the standard DWI SS-EPI phase-encoding scheme at 1.5T, represented by percentage of total assigned values.

Online Figure 3: Effect of matrix size and reduction factor upon reader assessment of motion artifact. (128, R1 — matrix size of 128 x 128, and reduction factor of 1.) Nominal values 1�5 represent reader grading and assessment of motion artifact compared with the standard DWI SS-EPI phase-encoding scheme at 1.5T, represented by percentage of total assigned values.

Online Figure 4: Effect of matrix size and reduction factor upon reader assessment of image noise. (128, R1 — matrix size of 128 x 128, and reduction factor of 1.) Nominal values 1�5 represent reader grading and assessment of perceived noise compared with the standard DWI SS-EPI phase-encoding scheme at 1.5T, represented by percentage of total assigned values.