Comparison of single-shot localization methods (STEAM and PRESS) for in vivo proton NMR spectroscopy.

C. T. Moonen, M. von Kienlin, Peter C Van Zijl, J. Cohen, Joseph S Gillen, P. Daly, G. Wolf

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Two single-shot localization techniques, STEAM and PRESS, are analyzed with regard to specifications for in vivo localized proton NMR. In particular, attention is paid to optimum signal intensity per unit volume, sensitivity to motion and diffusion, shortest attainable echo time, water suppression and editing possibilities. Experimental results are shown for cat brain at 4.7 T and human brain at 1.5 T. Both STEAM and PRESS are highly effective localization methods. For long echo times, PRESS is the method of choice, because it offers a factor of two gain in signal intensity. In addition, the method is less sensitive to motion and diffusion, and not susceptible to multiple-quantum effects. STEAM offers advantages for observation of (coupled) metabolites with short T2, because (a) shorter TEs can be attained and (b) effective water suppression sequences can be implemented without penalty in echo time. Differences relating to editing possibilities and B1 dependence, possibly important in choosing a method, are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)201-208
Number of pages8
JournalNMR in Biomedicine
Volume2
Issue number5-6
StatePublished - Dec 1989
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy
Protons
Brain
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Water
Metabolites
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Specifications
Cats
Observation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics

Cite this

Comparison of single-shot localization methods (STEAM and PRESS) for in vivo proton NMR spectroscopy. / Moonen, C. T.; von Kienlin, M.; Van Zijl, Peter C; Cohen, J.; Gillen, Joseph S; Daly, P.; Wolf, G.

In: NMR in Biomedicine, Vol. 2, No. 5-6, 12.1989, p. 201-208.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Moonen, CT, von Kienlin, M, Van Zijl, PC, Cohen, J, Gillen, JS, Daly, P & Wolf, G 1989, 'Comparison of single-shot localization methods (STEAM and PRESS) for in vivo proton NMR spectroscopy.', NMR in Biomedicine, vol. 2, no. 5-6, pp. 201-208.
Moonen, C. T. ; von Kienlin, M. ; Van Zijl, Peter C ; Cohen, J. ; Gillen, Joseph S ; Daly, P. ; Wolf, G. / Comparison of single-shot localization methods (STEAM and PRESS) for in vivo proton NMR spectroscopy. In: NMR in Biomedicine. 1989 ; Vol. 2, No. 5-6. pp. 201-208.
@article{877108b4fd2c4a74bd0fb156352e5233,
title = "Comparison of single-shot localization methods (STEAM and PRESS) for in vivo proton NMR spectroscopy.",
abstract = "Two single-shot localization techniques, STEAM and PRESS, are analyzed with regard to specifications for in vivo localized proton NMR. In particular, attention is paid to optimum signal intensity per unit volume, sensitivity to motion and diffusion, shortest attainable echo time, water suppression and editing possibilities. Experimental results are shown for cat brain at 4.7 T and human brain at 1.5 T. Both STEAM and PRESS are highly effective localization methods. For long echo times, PRESS is the method of choice, because it offers a factor of two gain in signal intensity. In addition, the method is less sensitive to motion and diffusion, and not susceptible to multiple-quantum effects. STEAM offers advantages for observation of (coupled) metabolites with short T2, because (a) shorter TEs can be attained and (b) effective water suppression sequences can be implemented without penalty in echo time. Differences relating to editing possibilities and B1 dependence, possibly important in choosing a method, are discussed.",
author = "Moonen, {C. T.} and {von Kienlin}, M. and {Van Zijl}, {Peter C} and J. Cohen and Gillen, {Joseph S} and P. Daly and G. Wolf",
year = "1989",
month = "12",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "201--208",
journal = "NMR in Biomedicine",
issn = "0952-3480",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "5-6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of single-shot localization methods (STEAM and PRESS) for in vivo proton NMR spectroscopy.

AU - Moonen, C. T.

AU - von Kienlin, M.

AU - Van Zijl, Peter C

AU - Cohen, J.

AU - Gillen, Joseph S

AU - Daly, P.

AU - Wolf, G.

PY - 1989/12

Y1 - 1989/12

N2 - Two single-shot localization techniques, STEAM and PRESS, are analyzed with regard to specifications for in vivo localized proton NMR. In particular, attention is paid to optimum signal intensity per unit volume, sensitivity to motion and diffusion, shortest attainable echo time, water suppression and editing possibilities. Experimental results are shown for cat brain at 4.7 T and human brain at 1.5 T. Both STEAM and PRESS are highly effective localization methods. For long echo times, PRESS is the method of choice, because it offers a factor of two gain in signal intensity. In addition, the method is less sensitive to motion and diffusion, and not susceptible to multiple-quantum effects. STEAM offers advantages for observation of (coupled) metabolites with short T2, because (a) shorter TEs can be attained and (b) effective water suppression sequences can be implemented without penalty in echo time. Differences relating to editing possibilities and B1 dependence, possibly important in choosing a method, are discussed.

AB - Two single-shot localization techniques, STEAM and PRESS, are analyzed with regard to specifications for in vivo localized proton NMR. In particular, attention is paid to optimum signal intensity per unit volume, sensitivity to motion and diffusion, shortest attainable echo time, water suppression and editing possibilities. Experimental results are shown for cat brain at 4.7 T and human brain at 1.5 T. Both STEAM and PRESS are highly effective localization methods. For long echo times, PRESS is the method of choice, because it offers a factor of two gain in signal intensity. In addition, the method is less sensitive to motion and diffusion, and not susceptible to multiple-quantum effects. STEAM offers advantages for observation of (coupled) metabolites with short T2, because (a) shorter TEs can be attained and (b) effective water suppression sequences can be implemented without penalty in echo time. Differences relating to editing possibilities and B1 dependence, possibly important in choosing a method, are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024835363&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024835363&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2641894

AN - SCOPUS:0024835363

VL - 2

SP - 201

EP - 208

JO - NMR in Biomedicine

JF - NMR in Biomedicine

SN - 0952-3480

IS - 5-6

ER -