Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 May 26.
Published in final edited form as: Magn Reson Med. 2002 Apr;47(4):655–664. doi: 10.1002/mrm.10105

FIG. 6.

FIG. 6

Average normalized (a) contrast (N = 7) and (b) CNR (N = 4) for normal human volunteers. Error bars reflect the SD over all slices averaged. All numbers are normalized to the single-echo SSFP contrast. All implementations of multishot EPI-SSFP slightly increased contrast with respect to one-echo SSFP. There was no significant difference between ETS and PAGE acquisitions with respect to contrast. There was no significant difference in contrast between any of the EPI-SSFP implementations with respect to the single-echo SSFP acquisitions. There was a significant difference in CNR between the three-echo PAGE acquisition and the single-echo SSFP case, as denoted by the asterisk (P < 0.001). ETS resulted in slightly higher contrast and CNR values associated with the higher flip angles allowed by longer TRs, although at a lower scan efficiency. PAGE resulted in maintained contrast, as G-factor-associated losses canceled the gains of higher flip angles.