Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Magn Reson Med. 2015 Sep 26;74(5):1227–1235. doi: 10.1002/mrm.25984

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Relative difference between corrected and conventional SPGR and bSSFP signals. The corrected signals incorporate non-zero TESPGR and TEbSSFP as discussed in the text, while the conventional signals omit these. Results are shown for different values of TE and as a function of flip angle (FA). Signals were generated using the following underlying input and experimental parameters: fF = 0.2, T2,F = 10 ms, T2,S = 90 ms, T1,F = 450 ms, T1,S = 2000, kFS = kSF = 0 ms−1, Δω = 0 Hz, and TRbSSFP = TRSPGR = 7 ms. As shown, for all TEs and FA combinations, the conventional SPGR signal was overestimated while the conventional bSSFP signal was underestimated.