Ming lu1,2, Bei Zhang3, John C. Gore1,2, and Xinqiang Yan1,2
1Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States, 2Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States, 3Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
1Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States, 2Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States, 3Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States
We proposed an RF
circuit and EM field co-simulation method that can evaluate the preamplifier
decoupling in terms of the resonate response difference, B1, and SNR. This
method has been used in analyzing the preamplifier decoupling performance of
different types of coil.
Figure 3. Circuit-level
simulation results of the preamp decoupling abilities in different types of
coil. This ability was evaluated by the resonate response difference between
the termination of 50Ω and the termination of the preamp. The real part of the
preamp (Re[Zin]) was set with different values from 0Ω to 10Ω. In practice,
Re[Zin]< 5 Ω is recognized as an acceptable low-input impedance. For LIC,
Cm=59.9 pF and Ct= 33.1pF. For HIC, Lm= 483.8 nH and Cms= 7.1 pF. For small-Cm
LIC coil, Cm = 5.5 pF, Ct = 1000 pF and Cms = 7.1 pF.
Figure 5. SNR
and noise correlation simulation results. A: Calculated SNR maps in the central
transverse slice. B: Average noise correlation of neighbor coils (i.e.,
left-middle and right-middle coils). C: Calculated SNR values in an 8-cm-deep
region that is directly under the middle coil.
