Skip to main content
. 2014 Dec 30;9(12):e116378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116378

Figure 3. The impact of data inconsistencies on MUSE produced image quality: (a) The gold standard of our numerical simulation.

Figure 3

(b) The conventional interleaved EPI in the presence of inter-segment phase variation (0.3 radians), magnitude variation (20%), translational motion (0.5 pixel) and rotational motion (1 degree). (c) The MUSE reconstruction of the same data set shown in b. (d) Artifact levels in images reconstructed with Fourier transform (i.e., conventional interleaved EPI: circles) and MUSE (triangles) in the presence of inter-segment phase variations. (e) Artifact levels in images reconstructed with Fourier transform (circles) and MUSE (triangles) in the presence of inter-segment magnitude variations. (f) Artifact levels in images reconstructed with Fourier transform (circles) and MUSE (triangles) in the presence of inter-segment position changes (at a fixed level of translation of 1 pixel and various levels of rotation). (g) Artifact levels in images reconstructed with Fourier transform (circles) and MUSE (triangles) in the presence of inter-segment signal variations simultaneously resulting from multiple sources.