Magnetic Resonance Imaging 24 (2006) 1311 – 1318

Truncation effects in SENSE reconstruction

Lei Yuana, Leslie Yingb, Dan Xua, Zhi-Pei Lianga,4
a
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA
b
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA
Received 27 November 2005; accepted 9 August 2006

Abstract

Finite sampling is an important practical issue in Fourier imaging systems. Although data truncation effects are well understood in
conventional Fourier imaging where a single uniform receiver channel is used for data acquisition, this issue is not yet fully addressed in
parallel imaging where an array of nonuniform receiver channels is used for sensitivity encoding to enable sub-Nyquist sampling of k-space.
This article presents a systematic analysis of the problem by comparing the truncation effects in parallel imaging with those in conventional
Fourier imaging. Specifically, it derives a convolution kernel function to characterize the truncation effects, which is shown to be
approximately equal to that associated with the conventional Fourier imaging scheme. This article also describes a set of conditions under
which significant differences between the truncation effects in parallel imaging and conventional Fourier imaging occur. The results should
provide useful insight into interpreting and reducing data truncation effects in parallel imaging.
D 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Truncation effects; SENSE; Parallel imaging

1. Introduction 1D Fourier transforms along each spatial direction. There-

fore, without loss of generality, we will focus our discussion
Parallel imaging using multiple receiver coils has
on 1D sensitivity encoding (assumed to be along the x
emerged as an efficient tool to reduce MRI data acquisition
direction) by rewriting Eq. (1) as
time [1-9], with a wide range of applications [10-16]. The
k-space data collected in a sensitivity-encoded (SENSE)   B=2
Z
imaging experiment using an array of L receiver coils can be Dl nDk̂k ¼ qð xÞsl ð xÞei2pnDk̂k x dx; ð2Þ
expressed, in general, as [2] B=2
Z
Dl ðkn Þ ¼ qðrÞsl ðrÞei2pkn d r dr; ð1Þ where q(x) is assumed to be support limited to |x| bB/2, k is
used for k x for simplicity and the sampling interval Dk̂ is
where s l (r) is the sensitivity function of the lth coil, l = 1, chosen to be Dk̂ =RDk with Dk = 1/B and R z 1. Notice that
2, . . ., L, q(r) is the desired image function and D l (kn ) is the when R = 1, the Nyquist sampling criterion is satisfied;
data sample measured at k-space location kn by the lth coil. otherwise, the k-space data is undersampled by a factor of
This article focuses on Cartesian k-space sampling since R V L, thereby increasing the imaging speed by a factor of R.
nonuniform sampling of k-space can introduce additional When there is no data truncation, the Fourier image
image artifacts, analysis of which is beyond the scope of this produced by the lth coil from the infinite Fourier series
article. Invoking the separability of the Fourier transform in with coefficients D l (nDk̂) [17] can be written as [9]
Cartesian sampling, Eq. (1) can be rewritten as sequential R1    
X
dl ð x Þ ¼ q x  mB̂
B sl x  mB̂
B ; ð3Þ
m¼0

for B/2B̂ b x b B/2 and l =1, 2, . . ., L, where B̂ = B/R is

4 Corresponding author. Beckman Institute, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. known as the reduced field of view [2]. Because the
E-mail address: [email protected] (Z.-P. Liang). sensitivity-weighted images, q(x)s l (x), have a spatial
0730-725X/$ – see front matter D 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mri.2006.08.014
1312 L. Yuan et al. / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 24 (2006) 1311–1318

Fig. 1. Simulation results to illustrate that the truncation effects are almost the same for SENSE and Fourier reconstructions, as indicated by Eq. (14): (A) True
object function. (B) Sensitivity functions used for generating sensitivity-encoded data for SENSE reconstructions. (C–D) Fourier reconstructions (from a single
uniform channel) with 128 and 32 k-space samples, respectively. (E–F) SENSE reconstructions with 64 and 16 k-space samples for each channel with R = 2.
2 3 2 3
support of B, q(xmB̂)s l (xmB̂) for different m =0, 1, . . ., qð xÞ  d 1 ð xÞ
R1 will overlap, producing the well-known aliasing effect 6 q x  B̂B 7 6 d 2 ð xÞ 7
U¼6
4
7
5 and d ¼ 6
4 v 5:
7
in d l (x). Based on Eq. (3), we can remove the aliasing error  v 
in d l (x) to obtain the desired image function q(x). q x  ð R  1ÞB̂
B dL ð x Þ
Specifically, rewriting Eq. (3) in matrix form yields
The least-squares solution for q is given by1
U ¼ d;
SU ð4Þ  1
U ¼ SH S SH d; ð5Þ
where
1
2    3 The SENSE reconstruction formula was derived based on the
s1 ð xÞ s1 x  B̂B N s1 x  ð R  1ÞB̂
B assumption that q(x) is a summation of voxel functions [2]. For finite
6 s2 ð xÞ s2  x  B̂
B

N

B 7
s2 x  ð R  1ÞB̂

sampling, the voxel model has to be truncated to a finite sum, which is
S¼6
4 v
7;
5 equivalent to the data truncation effect analyzed in this article by assuming
 v  O  v  q(x) to be a general support-limited function. When d-type voxel functions
sL ð xÞ sL x  B̂B N sL x  ð R  1ÞB̂
B are used (as is often the case in practice), the two effects are identical.
 L. Yuan et al. / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 24 (2006) 1311–1318 1313

which is the basic SENSE reconstruction formula. which is a periodic function with period B̂. To further relate
Equation (5) implicitly assumes that an infinite number of the truncation effect of multichannel parallel imaging to that
samples D l (nDk̂) is available, which is not valid in practice. of conventional single-channel Fourier imaging, we show in
This article analyzes the truncation effect in SENSE the Appendix that
reconstruction in comparison with those seen in conven- R1  
X
tional Fourier imaging using a single uniform data hR ð x Þ ¼ h x  mB̂
B ; ð12Þ
acquisition channel with Nyquist sampling. m¼0

The rest of the article is organized as follows. Section 2 and

presents a general theoretical analysis of the truncation
X 
R1    
effects in the reconstruction given by Eq. (5). Section 3 dˆl ð xÞc ðq4hÞ x  mB̂
B sl x  mB̂
B ; ð13Þ
discusses several specific issues and suggests some methods m¼0
that can mitigate the truncation effects, with some repre-
sentative simulation and experimental results. The conclu-
sion of the study is given in Section 4.

2. Theoretical analysis
In conventional Fourier imaging using a single, uniform
data acquisition channel, the Fourier reconstruction of q(x)
from N data points, D(nDk), n = N/2, . . ., N/21, taken at
the Nyquist interval (Dk =1/B) is given by [17]:
N =21
X
q ð xÞ ¼ Dk
q̂ DðnDk Þei2pnDkx ; ð6Þ
n¼N=2

xa½  B=2; B=2:

The data truncation effect in q̂(x) can be described by the

following convolution [17,18]:
q ð xÞ ¼ qð xÞ4hð xÞ;
q̂ ð7Þ

where the convolution kernel function is given by [17]:

N =21
X sinð pN DkxÞ ipDkx
hð xÞ ¼ Dk ei2pnDkx ¼ Dk e ; ð8Þ
n¼N =2 sinðpDkxÞ

which is a periodic sinc function with period B.

In the multiple-channel case, the Fourier image produced
from the undersampled data D l (nDk̂) at the lth channel is
given by [2]:
M =21
X    
dˆl ð xÞ ¼ Dk̂k Dl nDk̂k ei2pnDk̂k x ; xa B=2  B̂
B; B=2 ; ð9Þ
n¼M =2

where it is assumed that MDk̂ =NDk. We show in the

Appendix that the truncation effect in d̂ l (x) can be
represented by:
dˆl ð xÞ ¼ ½qð xÞsl ð xÞ4hR ð xÞ; ð10Þ
where the convolution kernel is
MX
=21 Fig. 2. Simulation results to illustrate truncation effects associated with
hR ð xÞ ¼ Dk̂k ei2pnDk̂k x boundary discontinuities: (A) Fourier reconstruction of a rectangular
n¼M =2 function from 128 Fourier samples and (B) SENSE reconstruction with
  M = 64 and R = 2 using the sensitivity functions shown in (C). The
sin pM Dk̂k x ipDk̂k x aliased ringing at the center of the SENSE reconstruction was due to the
¼ Dk̂k   e ; ð11Þ boundary discontinuities in q(x)s l (x), which is absent in the conventional
sin pDk̂k x Fourier reconstruction.
1314 L. Yuan et al. / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 24 (2006) 1311–1318

where h(x) is the same as in Eq. (8). Comparing Eq. (13) expression relating the final SENSE reconstruction (with the
with Eq. (3) immediately yields the SENSE reconstruction Dirac-d voxel function) to the ideal image function. A
partial expression was obtained in Ref. [19] for a simplified
q R ð xÞcqð xÞ4hð xÞ ¼ q̂
q̂ q ð xÞ: ð14Þ
case, although no explicit expression for the convolution
kernel function was given. In Refs. [20,21], a spatial
Eq. (14) is a key result of this article; it confirms that the
response function [equivalent to h R (x)] was used to describe
truncation effects in SENSE reconstruction, q̂R (x), can be
the truncation effects in q(x)s l (x), which was incorporated
described by a convolution equation. More interestingly, the
convolution kernel function is approximately equal to that in the image voxel model, but the final point spread function
for the SENSE reconstruction was not derived. Therefore,
associated with the conventional Fourier imaging scheme.
Eq. (14) should provide additional insight into interpreting
This result is illustrated in Fig. 1.
the truncation effects in SENSE reconstruction. In practice,
Note that Eq. (13) was derived under the assumption that
various factors can affect the approximation accuracy of
s l (x) is a smooth function in the sense that the spatial
Eq. (14). In this section, we discuss several key factors
variations of s l (x) over any interval of length 1/(NDk) [the
and some methods to mitigate the truncation effects.
effective width of h(x)] are negligible. When this assump-
tion is violated, we will see noticeable difference in 3.1. Boundary discontinuities
truncation effects in SENSE reconstruction. This and other
It is well understood that discontinuities in q(x) will
related issues will be discussed in Section 3.
produce noticeable Gibbs ringing in its Fourier reconstruc-
tions. When q(x) is represented by the Fourier series,
additional discontinuities can occur at both ends of the
3. Discussion
image function because of periodic extension implicitly
The problem of data truncation in parallel imaging had imposed by the Fourier series. This is not an important
been addressed in previous work especially [19-21]. issue in conventional Fourier imaging, because these
However, to our knowledge, Eq. (14) is the first explicit discontinuities, if any, are usually at the noise level.

Fig. 3. Simulation results to illustrate the effect of inaccurate s l (x) on the truncation artifacts: (A) SENSE reconstruction using M = 32 and R = 4 with the true
sensitivity functions in (B) and (C) SENSE reconstruction using M = 32 and R = 4 with the estimated sensitivity functions in (D). The sensitivity functions were
not estimated correctly in the background region, which leads to additional artifacts on top of the truncation effects in (A).
 L. Yuan et al. / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 24 (2006) 1311–1318 1315

Apart from potential discontinuities in the estimated

s l (x), there may exist other kinds of estimation errors such
as misregistration between the sensitivity functions and the
underlying object function. In this case, aliased Gibbs
ringing in q̂R (x) may occur, as shown in Fig. 4.
3.3. Level of data truncation
An important assumption in Eq. (14) is that s l (x) is a
smooth function relative to the effective width W h of the
main lobe of h R (x). That is, the spatial variations of s l (x)
over any interval of the length W h are assumed to be
negligible. Since W h = B/(RM), increasing the number of
sampling points M will reduce W h , making s l (x) appear

Fig. 4. Simulation results to illustrate the effect of misregistered s l (x) on the

truncation effects: (A) the true (dashed) and estimated (solid) sensitivities of
four channels and (B) SENSE reconstruction using the estimated
sensitivities with R = 2 and M = 64.

However, with SENSE, discontinuities in q(x) can be

enhanced by the sensitivity weighting functions s l (x).
Even if q(x) is continuous at both ends after periodic
extension, as shown in Fig. 2A, discontinuities can still be
introduced because s l (x) may have different values at both
ends, as shown in Fig. 2C. Gibbs ringing resulting from
the newly introduced discontinuities may be aliased back,
creating new artifacts, as can be seen in the middle of the
reconstructed boxcar function in Fig. 2B. This type of
truncation artifact is unique to sensitivity-encoded
parallel imaging.
3.2. Inaccurate sensitivity functions
The coil sensitivity functions used in SENSE reconstruc-
tion are often obtained from a breferenceQ scan. The
reference image obtained from each coil is divided by that
obtained from a whole-body coil (if available) or by the
bsum-of-squaresQ of all the references to yield the estimated Fig. 5. Experimental results to compare the Fourier and SENSE truncation
sensitivity map. In practice, reasonably accurate estimate of artifacts at different truncation levels. The data were acquired from a brain
s l (x) can be obtained within the region of interest. However, phantom using an 8-channel head coil. The Fourier reconstructions from
in the background regions where the reference image has the 256256, 64256 and 32256 k-space samples are shown in (A), (B) and
noise values, s l (x) are not well defined, often resulting in (C), respectively. The corresponding SENSE reconstructions from
128256, 32256 and 16256 k-space samples (with R = 2) are shown
discontinuities in the estimated s l (x). This inaccurate s l (x) in (D), (E) and (F), respectively. Note that as the size of the truncation
can introduce additional artifacts in the reconstructed image, window was reduced, the truncation effects in Fourier and SENSE
as illustrated in Fig. 3. reconstructions show more differences in pattern and amplitude.
1316 L. Yuan et al. / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 24 (2006) 1311–1318

Fig. 6. Simulation results to illustrate that the truncation effects can be amplified when the encoding matrix S is poorly conditioned. (A) SENSE reconstruction
with R = 2 and M = 64 using the s l (x) shown in (B). (C) SENSE reconstruction with R = 2 and M = 64 using the s l (x) shown in (D). Note that the S matrix for the
sensitivities in (B) is better conditioned than for those in (D); hence, the artifacts in (A) are smaller than those in (C).

smoother with respect to h R (x). Therefore, the larger the M 3.5. Methods to mitigate truncation effects in SENSE
is, the closer the truncation effects in SENSE are to those in
A number of methods have been proposed for reducing
the conventional Fourier reconstruction. This is illustrated in
Gibbs ringing artifacts in Fourier imaging [23]. Conventional
Fig. 5, where we compare Fourier reconstruction with
filtering methods are rather effective, but improvement
SENSE reconstruction for different truncation levels using a
comes at the expense of spatial resolution. Superresolution
real data set acquired from a brain phantom.
methods [23] require the use of a priori constraints in one
3.4. Effect of an ill-conditioned S matrix form or another. All of these methods are directly applicable
to parallel imaging. When R is much smaller than L, as is
The truncation effect in SENSE is also dependent on the
sometimes the case, specialized methods are also available to
numerical condition of the SENSE coefficient matrix S.
reduce the truncation effects in SENSE reconstruction by
When S is ill conditioned, the data truncation effects can be
taking advantage of the bredundantQ information collected.
enhanced. This can be understood from a matrix perturba-
One such example is reported in Refs. [20,24], which seeks
tion analysis. Specifically, let d = d0+Dd and R =R0+DR in
the minimum-norm solution after incorporating the spatial
Eq. (5), where Dd and DR account for the truncation effects
response function into the SENSE reconstruction equation.
in the sensitivity-weighted image and in the final recon-
We have also observed a reduction of Gibbs ringing artifacts
struction, respectively, while d0 and R0 are the truncation
in regularized SENSE reconstruction if a good regularization
artifact-free components. It is well known [22] that when S
image is available. Detailed discussion of regularized
is ill conditioned, the same Dd can lead to a larger DR. This
SENSE is beyond the scope of the article. Interested
effect is also illustrated in Fig. 6.
readers are referred to Refs. [7,25,26].
In practice, several factors can affect the numerical
condition of S. Coil configuration is a big factor. Increasing
R without increasing L can also worsen the numerical
4. Conclusions
condition of S. Nonetheless, in practical SENSE imaging
experiments, R is often chosen conservatively to protect the This article presented a systematic analysis of the
numerical condition of S. truncation effects in SENSE. It was shown that the
 L. Yuan et al. / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 24 (2006) 1311–1318 1317

truncation effects can be described by a convolution Proof of Eq. (12).

operation, where the convolution kernel function is
X
R1  X
 R1 NX
=21
approximately equal to that of conventional Fourier ei2pnDk ðx RDk Þ
m
h x  mB̂
B ¼ Dk
imaging when the sensitivity functions of the receiver coils m¼0 m¼0 n¼N =2
NX X
=21 R1
are smooth. This article also analyzed various practical ¼ Dk ei2pnDkx i2pnm
R
conditions that can lead to a noticeable difference in the n¼N =2 m¼0
truncation effects between conventional Fourier imaging
and SENSE. It was shown that when the estimated NX
=21 X
R1
i2pnm
sensitivity functions contain discontinuities, additional ¼ Dk ei2pnDkx e R

ringing artifacts will be introduced. In addition, when the n¼N =2 m¼0

SENSE coefficient matrix is ill conditioned, the truncation

NX
=21 X
effects in SENSE reconstruction can be enhanced. These l
¼ Dk ei2pnDkx R d½n  pR
results should provide useful insight into interpreting and p¼l
n¼N =2
improving SENSE images.
N
2R 1
X
Acknowledgments ¼ RDk ei2ppRDkx
N
p¼ 2R
This work was supported by the following research
grants: NSF-BES-0201876, NIH-P41-EB03631-16 and X
M=21
NIH-R01-CA098717. The authors wish to thank Dr. Roland ¼ Dk̂k ei2pnDk̂k x
Bammer of Stanford University for providing the experi- n¼M =2

mental data set used in Fig. 5.

¼ hR ð xÞ:

Appendix A
Proof of Eq. (13).
Proof of Eqs. (10) and (11). dˆl ð xÞ ¼ ½qð xÞsl ð xÞ4hR ð xÞ

Let X
R1  
 ¼ ½qð xÞsl ð xÞ4h x  mB̂
B
1; n ¼ pR; for integer p
PR ðnÞ ¼ ; m¼0
0; otherwise
X
R 1 Z
and l  
¼ qðsÞsl ðsÞh x  mB̂
B  s ds
 l
1;  N =2VnVN =2  1 m¼0
W ðnÞ ¼ :
0; otherwise
XZ l
R1  

 
Then, c qðsÞh x  mB̂
B  s ds sl x  mB̂
B
m¼0 l
X
M=21
 
dˆl ð xÞ ¼ Dk̂k Dl nDk̂k e i2pnDk̂k x
X
R1    
n¼M=2
¼ ðq4hÞ x  mB̂
B sl x  mB̂
B :
m¼0
X
l
i2pnDkx
¼ Dk̂k Dl ðnDk ÞPR ðnÞW ðnÞe
n¼l Note that the b6Q holds when the variation of s l (x) over
" # " # any interval of 1/(NDk) [the effective width of the main lobe of
X
l X
l h(x)] is negligible. This is reasonable since s l (x) is generally a
¼ Dl ðnDk Þei2pnDkx 4 Dk̂k PR ðnÞW ðnÞei2pnDkx smooth function.
n¼l n¼l

" # " #
X
l X
l
¼ Dl ðnDk Þei2pnDkx 4 Dk̂k W ðmRÞei2pmRDkx References
n¼l m¼l
[1] Sodickson D, Manning W. Simultaneous acquisition of spatial
2 3 harmonics (SMASH): fast imaging with radiofrequency coil arrays.
X
M=21
Magn Reson Med 1997;38:591 – 603.
¼ ½qð xÞsl ð xÞ44Dk̂k ei2pmDk̂k x 5 [2] Pruessmann K, Weiger M, Scheidegger M, Boesiger P. SENSE:
m¼M =2 sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:952 – 62.
[3] Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, Nittka M, Jellus V, Wang
JM, et al. Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions
¼ ½qð xÞsl ð xÞ4hR ð xÞ: (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med 2002;47:1202 – 10.
1318 L. Yuan et al. / Magnetic Resonance Imaging 24 (2006) 1311–1318

[4] Kyriakos WE, Panych LP, Kacher DF, Westin CF, Bao SM, Mulkern susceptibility artifacts in BOLD fMRI. Magn Reson Med 2002;
RV, et al. Sensitivity profiles from an array of coils for encoding and 48:860 – 6.
reconstruction in parallel (SPACE RIP). Magn Reson Med 2000; [16] McGee KP, Debbins JP, Boskamp EB, Blawat L, Angelos L, King KF.
44:301 – 8. Cardiac magnetic resonance parallel imaging at 3.0 Tesla: technical
[5] Heberlein K, Hu X. kSENSE: k-space sensitivity encoding recon- feasibility and advantages. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19:291 – 7.
struction. Proceedings of 9th ISMRM Scientific Meeting and [17] Liang ZP, Lauterbur PC. Principles of magnetic resonance imaging: a
Exhibition; 2001. p. 770. signal processing perspective. New York7 IEEE Press; 2000.
[6] Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Bfrnert P, Boesiger P. Advances in [18] Haacke EM, Brown RW, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R. Magnetic
sensitivity encoding with arbitrary k-space trajectories. Magn Reson resonance imaging: physical principles and sequence design. New
Med 2001;46:638 – 51. York7 Wiley-Liss; 1999.
[7] King KF, Angelos L. SENSE image quality improvement using [19] Zhao X, Prost RW, Li Z, Li SJ. Reduction of artifacts by optimization
matrix regularization. Proceedings of 9th Annual Meeting of of the sensitivity map in sensitivity-encoded spectroscopic imaging.
ISMRM; 2001. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:30 – 4.
[8] Katscher U, Kohler T. Under-determined SENSE. Proceedings of [20] Tsao J, Sánchez J, Boesiger P, Pruessmann KP. Minimum-norm
Workshop on Minimum MR Data Acquisition Methods: Making reconstruction for optimal spatial response in high-resolution SENSE
More with Less. Marco Island, Florida, USA; 2001. p. 42 – 5. imaging. Proceedings of 11th ISMRM Scientific Meeting and
[9] Blaimer M, Breuer F, Mueller M, Heidemann RM, Griswold MA, Exhibition; 2003. p. 14.
Jakob PM. SMASH, SENSE, PILS, GRAPPA, how to choose the [21] Dydak U, Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Meier D, Boesiger P.
optimal method. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:223 – 36. Sensitivity-encoded spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med
[10] Bammer R, Auer M, Keeling SL, Augustin M, Stables LA, Prokesch 2001;46:713 – 22.
RW, et al. Diffusion tensor imaging using single-shot SENSE-EPI. [22] Golub GH, Van Loan CF. Matrix computations. 2nd ed. Baltimore
Magn Reson Med 2002;48:128 – 36. (MD)7 Johns Hopkins University Press; 1989.
[11] Larkman DJ, deSouza NM, Bydder M, Hajnal JV. An investigation [23] Liang ZP, Boada F, Constable T, Haacke EM, Lauterbur PC, Smith
into the use of sensitivity-encoded techniques to increase temporal MR. Constrained reconstruction methods in MR imaging. Rev Magn
resolution in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast imaging. J Magn Reson Med 1992;4:67 – 185.
Reson Imaging 2001;14:329 – 35. [24] Sanchez-Gonzalez J, Tsao J, Dydak U, Desco M, Boesiger P,
[12] Larkman DJ, Bydder M, deSouza NM, Williams AD, Bearden FH, Pruessmann PK. Minimum-norm reconstruction for sensitivity-
Hajnal JV. SENSE in the abdomen and pelvis. Proceedings of 9th encoded magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson
ISMRM Scientific Meeting and Exhibition; 2001. p. 2012. Med 2006;55:287 – 95.
[13] de Zwart JA, Ledden PJ, Kellman P, van Gelderen P, Duyn JH. Design [25] Liang ZP, Ying L, Xu D, Yuan L. Parallel imaging: some signal
of a SENSE-optimized high-sensitivity MRI receive coil for brain processing issues and solutions. Proceedings of 2004 IEEE Interna-
imaging. Magn Reson Med 2002;47:1218 – 27. tional Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. Arlington, VA, USA,
[14] Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Boesiger P. Cardiac real-time imaging April; 2004. p. 1204 – 7.
using SENSE. Magn Reson Med 2000;43:177 – 84. [26] Lin FH, Kwong KK, Belliveau JW, Wald LL. Parallel imaging
[15] Weiger M, Pruessmann KP, Õsterbauer R, Bfrnert PB, Boesiger P, reconstruction using automatic regularization. Magn Reson Med
Jezzard P. Sensitivity-encoded single-shot spiral imaging for reduced 2004;51:559 – 67.