Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Sep 14.
Published in final edited form as: Nature. 2013 Mar 14;495(7440):187–192. doi: 10.1038/nature11971

Figure 5. Accuracy, Efficiency and Error estimation for MRF and DESPOT.

Figure 5

The T1 and T2 values retrieved from MRF from eight phantoms were compared with those acquired from DESPOT1(a), DESPOT2(b) and a standard spin-echo sequence. The efficiency of MRF was compared to DESPOT1(c) and DESPOT2(d) at different T1 and T2 values. MRF has an average of 1.87 and 1.85 times higher efficiency than DESPOT1 and DESPOT2, respectively. (e) and (f) show the means and standard deviations of T1 and T2 as a function of acquisition time. Error bars represent the standard deviations of the results over a 25-pixel region in the center of each phantom, which are smaller than the symbols for most MRF results.